Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[grannymh]

If the state of sanctifying grace is the same as original holiness, we wouldn’t die, would we?
So it can’t be…not to me anyway, not in my understanding or lack of understanding of what Adam had that we do not.

Thanks for your thought on God and Adam sharing a deep loving relationship. Sounds like it should be, yet we as humans living now as the creatures affected by original sin, know that we can love someone/God but still sin against them. We have alittle bit of an excuse though, we are born separate from God, and inclined to sin.
Adam on the other hand, was created without an inclination to sin, love of God etc, yet became the original sinner.

You know that jigsaw puzzle you spoke about a while ago, I still have half the pieces to put together, a few missing…

What is missing are the Preternatural Gifts. Preternatural Gifts are not the State of Original Holiness. I am sure that there are posters who can explain these.

Here is the normal link to Preternatural Gifts. therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm Note the title and then scroll down to Terminology. CCC 376 describes the condition for these extra gifts. CCC 379 is blunt.

What is missing is human intellective free choice aka free will.

When there is doubt that humans can truly knowingly reject God, the Catholic teachings on conscience and free will goes down the drain. When a proposal about God’s unconditional love hints that acknowledging one’s sins and properly seeking forgiveness may not be exactly necessary, (Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation) there may be a problem. Obviously, when Adam becomes non-existent, all kinds of problems disappear.

Obviously, I could be exaggerating the problems connected to the modern version of intellective free choice aka free will. Obviously, I could be proven wrong according to some standards. Obviously, because of the freedom of human nature, one should continue to study Catholicism for the rest of their lives.

The gift of human free will is found in Genesis 2: 15-17

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for your thought on God and Adam sharing a deep loving relationship. Sounds like it should be, yet we as humans living now as the creatures affected by original sin, know that we can love someone/God but still sin against them. We have alittle bit of an excuse though, we are born separate from God, and inclined to sin.

I am sure you did not mean to say “we are born separate from God”

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

What is missing are the Preternatural Gifts. Preternatural Gifts are not the State of Original Holiness. I am sure that there are posters who can explain these.

But they came with it, and that’s why it can not be the same.

And yes Adam lost these gifts because he did not remain in divine intimacy.

 

[simpleas]

I am sure you did not mean to say “we are born separate from God”

Separate in the sense that we do not share in divine intimacy as Adam did, until we are baptised.

 

[PJM]

I wonder if all the misunderstandings of Original Sin occur because some people no longer consider the first three chapters of Genesis as being important in modern life.

These chapters ARE tue, but not necessary factual, EXCEPT in the Moral lessons they teach. “TEACH” being the key to right understanding"

 

[grannymh]

But they came with it, and that’s why it can not be the same.

And yes Adam lost these gifts because he did not remain in divine intimacy.

Unfortunately, there is a difficulty with the language.

In the Catholic Church, the Preternatural Gifts were not part of Adam’s State of Original Holiness. The Divine Intimacy is not some rope which ties the State of Original Holiness firmly to the Preternatural Gifts so that there is only one bundle. Just because Adam had to remain in the friendship relationship with God in order to retain the Preternatural Gifts does not mean that these extra gifts were somehow glued within the State of Sanctify Grace aka State of Original Holiness.

When the Preternatural gifts were lost, they were completely lost because they were never a necessary part of human.

Please note that God gives His actual graces continually to the human.

 

[grannymh]

These chapters ARE tue, but not necessary factual, EXCEPT in the Moral lessons they teach. “TEACH” being the key to right understanding"

Moral lessons. That is very interesting. Thank you.

Here is a proper Catholic request. What are these Moral lessons?

 

[simpleas]

Unfortunately, there is a difficulty with the language.

In the Catholic Church, the Preternatural Gifts were not part of Adam’s State of Original Holiness. The Divine Intimacy is not some rope which ties the State of Original Holiness firmly to the Preternatural Gifts so that there is only one bundle. Just because Adam had to remain in the friendship relationship with God in order to retain the Preternatural Gifts does not mean that these extra gifts were somehow glued within the State of Sanctify Grace aka State of Original Holiness.

When the Preternatural gifts were lost, they were completely lost because they were never a necessary part of human.

Please note that God gives His actual graces continually to the human.

They had gifts they would have passed onto us, which they lost through the disobedience. I think these gifts would have helped us all live better lives as human beings.

The rope thing you describe above is nothing like what I think…

Confusion is kicking in again for me, so I’ll check out for a while.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

They had gifts they would have passed onto us, which they lost through the disobedience. I think these gifts would have helped us all live better lives as human beings.

The rope thing you describe above is nothing like what I think…

Confusion is kicking in again for me, so I’ll check out for a while.

Thanks.

I just work up. And the first thing which popped into my old brain is this old saying
“The Dog ate my homework.”

Give me a bit of time and I will apply it to why there is unnecessary confusion.

Check out this great link.

slate.com/articles/life/explainer/2012/10/did_anybody_ever_believe_the_excuse_the_dog_ate_my_homework_.html

 

[grannymh]

I just work up. And the first thing which popped into my old brain is this old saying
“The Dog ate my homework.”

Give me a bit of time and I will apply it to why there is unnecessary confusion.

Check out this great link.

slate.com/articles/life/explainer/2012/10/did_anybody_ever_believe_the_excuse_the_dog_ate_my_homework_.html

A clarification for our gentle readers.

When I say a “bit of time” is needed – that is time to research the general everyday natural unnecessary confusion covering A to Z of Catholicism – “time” can extend into weeks.

I sincerely hope that this thread remains in this Sacred Scripture Forum. At this point, there are more than 14,000 views.

 

[grannymh]

When I say a “bit of time” is needed – that is time to research the general everyday natural unnecessary confusion covering A to Z of Catholicism – “time” can extend into weeks.

I sincerely hope that this thread remains in this Sacred Scripture Forum. At this point, there are more than 14,000 views.

A is for Adam

Catholics can experience unnecessary confusion because other Catholics claim that A is for allegory. As if allegory is necessary when God is present. I wonder if these other Catholics claim that the dead soldiers in the American Civil War are an allegory.

Practically speaking, modern readers can see allegory in the first three chapters of Genesis. One might consider that Genesis 2: 15-17 is an allegory for God’s unconditional love for blood and guts humans. (CCC 1730-1732; CCC 396; CCC 397-399)

On the other hand, the sample allegory for Genesis 2: 15-17 falls a tad short because it does not include the status, beyond material blood and guts, of a rational human who can reject God in the food producing garden. Consequently, it slides past the Catholic truth that humans are not the same creatures as those which appear in Genesis 1:1-25. Naturally, the allegory Catholic would point to all the other allegories in the first three chapters of Genesis. For good measure, the allegories used in ancient creation stories are thrown in. That pot of Mulligan Stew …

When we consider the environment surrounding the Hebrew nation or genre, the first thing we spot is that the author of those marvelous chapters had to flat out speak the truth. Some of today’s Catholics become unnecessarily confused because they do not accept the actual events which are described in figurative language. If one cannot accept A as a real person who with his spouse are the sole founders of humankind – then the rest of the alphabet goes down the drain.

 

[OneSheep]

You know that jigsaw puzzle you spoke about a while ago, I still have half the pieces to put together, a few missing…

I think, simpleas, that it would help to look at the “meta-puzzle”.

For example, you try to have it all make sense in terms of scientific principles, such that there are no contradictions. I think it behooves us to look at the whole puzzle and try to determine why the whole puzzle is there in the first place, and then we can come to see that the puzzle pieces fit even though they apparently contradict.

For example, perhaps the doctrine of original sin does not make sense in terms of people created good and God not willing to harm us, especially for making errors of judgment (errors which already have their own natural consequences). However, there is something to be said for the place of original sin in the bigger puzzle, the one that addresses the questions such as “how is the human empowered by faith in God if he has to endure so much suffering?” or “How can the human be motivated to cooperate and behave?”

 

[simpleas]

A is for Adam

Catholics can experience unnecessary confusion because other Catholics claim that A is for allegory. As if allegory is necessary when God is present. I wonder if these other Catholics claim that the dead soldiers in the American Civil War are an allegory.

Practically speaking, modern readers can see allegory in the first three chapters of Genesis. One might consider that Genesis 2: 15-17 is an allegory for God’s unconditional love for blood and guts humans. (CCC 1730-1732; CCC 396; CCC 397-399)

On the other hand, the sample allegory for Genesis 2: 15-17 falls a tad short because it does not include the status, beyond material blood and guts, of a rational human who can reject God in the food producing garden. Consequently, it slides past the Catholic truth that humans are not the same creatures as those which appear in Genesis 1:1-25. Naturally, the allegory Catholic would point to all the other allegories in the first three chapters of Genesis. For good measure, the allegories used in ancient creation stories are thrown in. That pot of Mulligan Stew …

When we consider the environment surrounding the Hebrew nation or genre, the first thing we spot is that the author of those marvelous chapters had to flat out speak the truth. Some of today’s Catholics become unnecessarily confused because they do not accept the actual events which are described in figurative language. If one cannot accept A as a real person who with his spouse are the sole founders of humankind – then the rest of the alphabet goes down the drain.

I don’t know about any other Catholic or non Catholic who ponders the story of the fall of man being confused, but the confusion above in this thread was regarding the preternatural gifts and they not being necessary for a human to live. While I get that, (we obviously live sin die etc, adam and eve were to live sinless, on their journey to see God)
I think they were needed or what was the point of the story…

 

[simpleas]

I think, simpleas, that it would help to look at the “meta-puzzle”.

For example, you try to have it all make sense in terms of scientific principles, such that there are no contradictions. I think it behooves us to look at the whole puzzle and try to determine why the whole puzzle is there in the first place, and then we can come to see that the puzzle pieces fit even though they apparently contradict.

For example, perhaps the doctrine of original sin does not make sense in terms of people created good and God not willing to harm us, especially for making errors of judgment (errors which already have their own natural consequences). However, there is something to be said for the place of original sin in the bigger puzzle, the one that addresses the questions such as “how is the human empowered by faith in God if he has to endure so much suffering?” or “How can the human be motivated to cooperate and behave?”

The puzzle when it’s complete would be seeing the creator, and we don’t even know for sure if we’ll find that last piece to see the whole puzzle complete, especially when the bar can seem to be set so high one feels as though they may never reach it.

 

[grannymh]

B is for blindness

There are times when a speaker/writer is so compelling that we accidentally do not see a hidden question. Unnecessary confusion can be due to missing information. Then there are times when we want to be comfortable with our own views and so we do not take the time to reread or listen again. When the dog eats our homework, we are “blind” to some important truth.

For example. I landed in the middle of a suggested video. The speaker seemed to be talking about God’s involvement in Original Sin. The thoughts about the topic came from a recognized Saint. Then the speaker said something like --this was never declared a heresy. I was losing interest. Later that day, the four-letter word “heresy” rolled in the space between my ears.
CCC 66 says:
**66 **“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

It is the job of the major ecumenical Catholic Councils, guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John), to properly define and duly declare Divine Revelation as Catholic doctrines. The protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth is to study what the Gospels and Letters say, what the Early Church Fathers say, as well as what the Saints say as preparation for the Council. Not every word by these important Council participants is automatically made a doctrine. Neither is a rejected proposal automatically a heresy.
At this point, CCC 20-21 has an explanation regarding its text.
**20 “**The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.”
21 “The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.”

When the speaker/writer is known for her/his disagreement with some of the positions of Catholicism, then the hidden question asks what is really being said or where is it going. This does not imply that everything the speaker/writer says is wrong. What is implied is that listeners/readers have to go back to basic truths which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. These truths build from the foundation that a Divine Creator God exists.
When natural science conflicts …Divine Revelation trumps.

Three major truths

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[OneSheep]

The puzzle when it’s complete would be seeing the creator, and we don’t even know for sure if we’ll find that last piece to see the whole puzzle complete, especially when the bar can seem to be set so high one feels as though they may never reach it.

And really, do we ever “reach it”? There is always a level of mystery. I do like what I read from Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God which maintains that whatever we discern must show the truth that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most. This is an understatement, of course, but it bases our own knowing of truth on our own experience: How can one possibly fathom an infinitely loving God? Such infinity is the truth, but it can be very difficult to make sense of given our limited experiences.

The most important focus is that God loves us without limit or condition. This focus is a source of conversion for our hearts and minds. This focus is a source of creating the Kingdom, a world that cares for “the least” of us. Everything put forth in doctrine that seems to contradict His love and mercy need not be discarded, but it certainly can be relegated to the “mystery” file. In humility, we can proceed with the faith that we know from within.

So, as Granny says, we have a God we can know and be in relation with. What can we learn of God in that relationship that trumps all we “know”, which can guide our lives?

Answer: Love

 

[PJM]

A is for Adam

Catholics can experience unnecessary confusion because other Catholics claim that A is for allegory. As if allegory is necessary when God is present. I wonder if these other Catholics claim that the dead soldiers in the American Civil War are an allegory.

Practically speaking, modern readers can see allegory in the first three chapters of Genesis. One might consider that Genesis 2: 15-17 is an allegory for God’s unconditional love for blood and guts humans. (CCC 1730-1732; CCC 396; CCC 397-399)

On the other hand, the sample allegory for Genesis 2: 15-17 falls a tad short because it does not include the status, beyond material blood and guts, of a rational human who can reject God in the food producing garden. Consequently, it slides past the Catholic truth that humans are not the same creatures as those which appear in Genesis 1:1-25. Naturally, the allegory Catholic would point to all the other allegories in the first three chapters of Genesis. For good measure, the allegories used in ancient creation stories are thrown in. That pot of Mulligan Stew …

When we consider the environment surrounding the Hebrew nation or genre, the first thing we spot is that the author of those marvelous chapters had to flat out speak the truth. Some of today’s Catholics become unnecessarily confused because they do not accept the actual events which are described in figurative language. If one cannot accept A as a real person who with his spouse are the sole founders of humankind – then the rest of the alphabet goes down the drain.

GREAT POST Thank and God Bless

 

[grannymh]

C is for Church

This famous verse from Sacred Scripture “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7: 15, should be considered regarding what is happening in our Catholic Church. Currently, there are some, not all, speaker/writers who decided to update the Catholic Church according to their wishes. They want to choose which Divine Revelations can be set aside so that everyone can shake hands which is a symbol for reducing old doctrines to comport with common modern thinking.

“I hope whatever emerging Christianity is,” said a featured speaker at the conference, “it’s going to be much more practice-based than doctrine-based.’’ Thus, according to this Catholic speaker/writer, it will be possible for Catholics to set aside some annoying difficult doctrines so that we can be in communion with others as we work together to help the helpless. Then, everyone is invited to shake hands.

Returning to the beginning of human history, there is a brief hint of the first Church in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 1: 8 begins with “When they heard the sound of the Lord God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,” With this quote, we can picture Adam and Eve in a beautiful place inhabited by the Creator God. The difference between then and now is that Adam could not set aside the annoying difficult predictable results of the Original Sin doctrines (plural intended). Genesis 2: 15-17 is set in stone. While our Churches, a garden and a building, are different, Adam, Eve, and ourselves know that God has invited us, and all persons descending from the first couple, to be in joy eternal in the heavenly, not Eden, Presence of the Beatific Vision. (CCC 355-357)

 

[simpleas]

And really, do we ever “reach it”? There is always a level of mystery. I do like what I read from Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God which maintains that whatever we discern must show the truth that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most. This is an understatement, of course, but it bases our own knowing of truth on our own experience: How can one possibly fathom an infinitely loving God? Such infinity is the truth, but it can be very difficult to make sense of given our limited experiences.

The most important focus is that God loves us without limit or condition. This focus is a source of conversion for our hearts and minds. This focus is a source of creating the Kingdom, a world that cares for “the least” of us. Everything put forth in doctrine that seems to contradict His love and mercy need not be discarded, but it certainly can be relegated to the “mystery” file. In humility, we can proceed with the faith that we know from within.

So, as Granny says, we have a God we can know and be in relation with. What can we learn of God in that relationship that trumps all we “know”, which can guide our lives?

Answer: Love

And really, do we ever “reach it”?

I don’t know, I haven’t died…yet…

Yes the ‘mystery file’ handy to have when these difficult questions arise.

 

[grannymh]

D is for dog ate my homework

Going back to the homework in post 312, there is the job of choosing which Catholic doctrines should be relegated to the “mystery” file. Perhaps a committee needs to be formed. Or maybe each Catholic can decide for themselves. This or that definitely leads to lots of confusion. Thus, instead of doing one’s homework about the importance of Catholic doctrines, some, not all, Catholics prefer to simply say that the dog ate the homework.

One way to deal with the unnecessary confusion between this or that is to study the homework found in Humani Generis. Pope Pius XII is an excellent teacher in the following paragraphs. I put in bold an excellent point.

11.

Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.