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

[grannymh]

And the deeper meaning is?.. Get to the meat of it, Granny, what is the most important point you think needs to be made!

Adam is the real first human being on earth – without the word “if”

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I don’t think they were made incorrectly then, and we never have been made incorrectly. The “incorrectly” business started with Granny saying that opinions different than her own have a hidden message that humans were made incorrectly, but it is quite the opposite. Some of the underpinnings of unmodified original sin doctrine indeed can be taken to indicate that God made man incorrectly, and some of the modifications of doctrine make it less of a possibility that “God makes junk”.

It is difficult to make choices when we are not aware of the choices, and when we do not know all the relevant ramifications, consequences, effects of the choices, we are also making choices from a position of ignorance. Once A&E experienced eating the forbidden fruit, they suddenly “knew better”, they experienced shame. If they had full knowledge, they would have “known better” before they ate the fruit.

Yes. There are opinions different from Catholic doctrines. For example. There is the opinion that Adam was so stupid that he had to eat some forbidden fruit before he could understand the meaning of these words. (Genesis 2: 15-17)

“You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.”

Curiosity about the “unmodified original sin doctrine” mentioned in the beginning of this post. Please explain “unmodified original sin.” Also, I am curious about a modified original sin. Please explain a modified original sin.

Thank you.

P.S.
Please do not tell me that a modified original sin is a fly in the ointment.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. There are opinions different from Catholic doctrines. For example. There is the opinion that Adam was so stupid that he had to eat some forbidden fruit before he could understand the meaning of these words. (Genesis 2: 15-17)

“You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.”

Curiosity about the “unmodified original sin doctrine” mentioned in the beginning of this post. Please explain “unmodified original sin.” Also, I am curious about a modified original sin. Please explain a modified original sin.

Thank you.

P.S.
Please do not tell me that a modified original sin is a fly in the ointment.

Good Morning Granny,

In a similar vein, Augustine notes that men did not have in their members the law of their own concupiscence warring against the law of their mind'' (Ibid. II.37; Fathers of the Church). But what is concupiscence for Augustine? He writes that concupiscence is the law of sin which remains in the members of this body of death’’ and that this evil ``remains in our flesh, not by reason of the nature in which man was created by God and wisdom’’ (Ibid. II.4; Fathers of the Church). Thus Augustine claims that concupiscence is precisely this disordering of members, and that it is certainly not a property of the man in the state of original justice.

When it comes to concupiscence however, Aquinas finds himself in disagreement with Augustine. He notes that concupiscence is something natural, since it is an act of the concupiscible power'' (Ibid. IaIIae.85.3; New Advent). He defines concupiscence as the craving for pleasurable good’’ (Ibid. Ia.30.3; New Advent). He defines natural concupiscence as concupiscence which is suitable to the nature of the animal; for example, food, drink, and the like'' (Ibid.; New Advent). It is precisely this form of concupiscence with existed in the state of original justice. However he notes that, concupiscence is natural to man, in so far as it is subject to reason’’ (Ibid. IaIIae.85.3; New Advent). Though concupiscence was in man in the state of nature, it was totally subject to reason, and the soul was well-ordered.

memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html

There are other contrasts mentioned, and of course there are more modern nuances, but you can see the direction of revelation unfolding. The human moves from detesting his natural attributes to embracing them as gifts from God. Aquinas’ position is the one exhibiting greater awareness, and reflects humanity coming to see its intrinsic value in spite of the fact that we sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Adam is the real first human being on earth – without the word “if”

Sounds good to me Granny!

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny,

There are other contrasts mentioned, and of course there are more modern nuances, but you can see the direction of revelation unfolding. The human moves from detesting his natural attributes to embracing them as gifts from God. Aquinas’ position is the one exhibiting greater awareness, and reflects humanity coming to see its intrinsic value in spite of the fact that we sin.

May I kindly suggest that you review the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding “revelation unfolding.”

Try considering that Divine Revelation is already in both the Old Testament and New Testament. (No new public revelation is to be expected.)

Information regarding this truth of God’s Divine Revelation is found in paragraphs 65-67 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[OneSheep]

May I kindly suggest that you review the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding “revelation unfolding.”

Try considering that Divine Revelation is already in both the Old Testament and New Testament. (No new public revelation is to be expected.)

Information regarding this truth of God’s Divine Revelation is found in paragraphs 65-67 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Thanks, Granny, great reference:

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."28 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.

“gradually to grasp its full significance” / “unfolding revelation”

po tae toe / po tah toe

 

[simpleas]

Yes, I don’t think they were made incorrectly then, and we never have been made incorrectly. The “incorrectly” business started with Granny saying that opinions different than her own have a hidden message that humans were made incorrectly, but it is quite the opposite. Some of the underpinnings of unmodified original sin doctrine indeed can be taken to indicate that God made man incorrectly, and some of the modifications of doctrine make it less of a possibility that “God makes junk”.

It is difficult to make choices when we are not aware of the choices, and when we do not know all the relevant ramifications, consequences, effects of the choices, we are also making choices from a position of ignorance. Once A&E experienced eating the forbidden fruit, they suddenly “knew better”, they experienced shame. If they had full knowledge, they would have “known better” before they ate the fruit.

From the way I read what you say, it means Adam and Eve were made incorrectly. They didn’t have full knowledge to make the correct choice. It would be unfair of the creator to test which choice they would make if he had not given them sufficient knowledge, yet believing that the first two humans walked into sin and death for themselves and everyone with eyes wide opened is hard to do, since they were not affected by concupiscence yet.
St Augustine thought that it was pride that was the fault and fall of man, yet that is difficult too since they were not yet sinful in any manner known after the fall. Try as I may I haven’t understood how that ‘theory’ works.

Maybe the fall account is just a basic obedience teaching, obedience to God first, then through teachings from each religion, because obedience plays a big part in most all religions and in life itself.
When we don’t obey something bad will happen, it almost always does.

There is so little information in the fall account, it’s very simple, maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.

Just some thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, Granny, great reference:

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."28 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.

“gradually to grasp its full significance” / “unfolding revelation”

po tae toe / po tah toe

Pardon me.
When you study the protocol for Catholic Church Properly Unfolding Revelation, you will discover that making a previous doctrine explicit requires a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council or Ex Cathedra if that particular unfolding revelation is to be accepted as properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrine.

Your Saints and Theologians can express your favorite theological views. You can express your favorite theological views. Your mentor can express his favorite views. Your only difficulty will be to figure out which, all, or none favorite theological views correspond to an actual real Catholic doctrine.

From what I observe on the internet, I am sorry to inform you that there is a really serious difficulty known as tampering. (To interfere in a harmful manner.)
You may have to seek professional help if you run into weird stuff related to this thread. That fly in the ointment is beyond weird.

 

[grannymh]

From the way I read what you say, it means Adam and Eve were made incorrectly. They didn’t have full knowledge to make the correct choice. It would be unfair of the creator to test which choice they would make if he had not given them sufficient knowledge, yet believing that the first two humans walked into sin and death for themselves and everyone with eyes wide opened is hard to do, since they were not affected by concupiscence yet.
St Augustine thought that it was pride that was the fault and fall of man, yet that is difficult too since they were not yet sinful in any manner known after the fall. Try as I may I haven’t understood how that ‘theory’ works.

Maybe the fall account is just a basic obedience teaching, obedience to God first, then through teachings from each religion, because obedience plays a big part in most all religions and in life itself.
When we don’t obey something bad will happen, it almost always does.

There is so little information in the fall account, it’s very simple, maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.

Just some thoughts.

Can we start with some basic information about Adam and Original Sin which appears in the first three historical chapters of Sacred Scripture?

What is the essential information found in Genesis 1: 27?
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

What is the essential information found in Genesis 2-15-17?
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the
garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat
from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

 

[grannymh]

From the way I read what you say, it means Adam and Eve were made incorrectly. They didn’t have full knowledge to make the correct choice. It would be unfair of the creator to test which choice they would make if he had not given them sufficient knowledge, yet believing that the first two humans walked into sin and death for themselves and everyone with eyes wide opened is hard to do, since they were not affected by concupiscence yet.
St Augustine thought that it was pride that was the fault and fall of man, yet that is difficult too since they were not yet sinful in any manner known after the fall. Try as I may I haven’t understood how that ‘theory’ works.

Maybe the fall account is just a basic obedience teaching, obedience to God first, then through teachings from each religion, because obedience plays a big part in most all religions and in life itself.
When we don’t obey something bad will happen, it almost always does.

There is so little information in the fall account, it’s very simple, maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.

Just some thoughts.

I am so sorry to read your thoughts. They lead away from the goodness of God Who wants us to have joy eternal after bodily death. Those thoughts lead to the denial of our own human nature. How? By saying that there is so little information in the fall account, the Catholic teachings on good and evil, which humans are capable of understanding, are simply thrown out.

And what is the “lesson about life”? Is it a literal, that is true, lesson in the midst of non-literal information?

Or maybe that lesson about life is literal and the parts about God are not literal. That leads to confusion. Or maybe every person on earth can choose for themselves what Catholicism teaches and what they personally want to tamper. Maybe, like the “maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.”

Now you have me thinking that maybe the author of the first three informative chapters of Genesis should have put us into the non-rational, no soul sharing in God’s life, category. My sincere apology that I do not understand why you are thinking these thoughts. Especially, when the Catholic Church is not a “maybe”. It is firm. I am so sorry about……….

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I am so sorry to read your thoughts. They lead away from the goodness of God Who wants us to have joy eternal after bodily death. Those thoughts lead to the denial of our own human nature. How? By saying that there is so little information in the fall account, the Catholic teachings on good and evil, which humans are capable of understanding, are simply thrown out.

Thanks for your thought on what I think and where it leads according to your thoughts.

I don’t know how saying I think there is little information leading up to the fall, leads to a denial of our own human nature, an interest in understanding what was written isn’t intended to deny anything in my opinion.

And what is the “lesson about life”? Is it a literal, that is true, lesson in the midst of non-literal information?

We can have something told to us that wasn’t a literal event, but there is a truth in the story.

Or maybe that lesson about life is literal and the parts about God are not literal. That leads to confusion. Or maybe every person on earth can choose for themselves what Catholicism teaches and what they personally want to tamper. Maybe, like the “maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.”

No tampering from me, I can not change Catholic doctrine, nor do I wish to, I am not the Holy Spirit.
Well when a priest tells a person the genesis account is only an explanation on how we came to be, it leaves room in the mind to think on it more.

Now you have me thinking that maybe the author of the first three informative chapters of Genesis should have put us into the non-rational, no soul sharing in God’s life, category. My sincere apology that I do not understand why you are thinking these thoughts. Especially, when the Catholic Church is not a “maybe”. It is firm. I am so sorry about……….

I am not thinking those thoughts though, they are your thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for your thought on what I think and where it leads according to your thoughts.

I don’t know how saying I think there is little information leading up to the fall, leads to a denial of our own human nature, an interest in understanding what was written isn’t intended to deny anything in my opinion.

When one is interested in understanding, there is the necessity of reading all first three informative chapters of Genesis. The big time information leading up to Original Sin is in the first two chapters before chapter 3. Here our human nature is explained correctly. Adam, because he is a real human, knew exactly what would happen when he shattered his relationship with his Creator.

We can have something told to us that wasn’t a literal event, but there is a truth in the story.

Correct. However, when we listen to the wrong people, we get the wrong “truth.”

No tampering from me, I can not change Catholic doctrine, nor do I wish to, I am not the Holy Spirit.

Well when a priest tells a person the genesis account is only an explanation on how we came to be, it leaves room in the mind to think on it more.

When we listen to the wrong people, we discover that it is o.k. to think and believe anything we personally prefer.

I am not thinking those thoughts though, they are your thoughts.

Correct. Still, those thoughts follow logically from the stuff the wrong people are teaching.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Simpleas,

From the way I read what you say, it means Adam and Eve were made incorrectly. They didn’t have full knowledge to make the correct choice. It would be unfair of the creator to test which choice they would make if he had not given them sufficient knowledge, yet believing that the first two humans walked into sin and death for themselves and everyone with eyes wide opened is hard to do, since they were not affected by concupiscence yet.

It could be argued that the original authors did not intend that Adam and Eve were created as super-human with some kind of omniscience. The story is about obedience, as well as a means by which we can put the responsibility for some of our ills on humanity rather than God.

To me, what God created was beautiful and very functional, then and now. Sure, we are born ignorant, but this does not take away from that observation. Again, we must read Genesis 2 with Christ in mind. Does God in the story demonstrate the loving Father that Jesus tells us about and demonstrates from the cross? To the degree that Genesis 2 compromises His Merciful Image, to that degree we have to find non-literal means of interpreting the story.

St Augustine thought that it was pride that was the fault and fall of man, yet that is difficult too since they were not yet sinful in any manner known after the fall. Try as I may I haven’t understood how that ‘theory’ works.

You aren’t alone in this inability to make sense of that.

Maybe the fall account is just a basic obedience teaching, obedience to God first, then through teachings from each religion, because obedience plays a big part in most all religions and in life itself.
When we don’t obey something bad will happen, it almost always does.

That makes sense to me! Of course, there is always civil disobedience, for a just cause, where whatever bad that happens (getting arrested) is worth it. Tribal societies did not likely deal mercifully with civil disobedience though.

There is so little information in the fall account, it’s very simple, maybe that was how it was meant to be read, not to be taken literally, but as a lesson about life.

Just some thoughts.

Exactly. If we took it too seriously, we would be believing in “gods” rather than One Father.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Simpleas,

It could be argued that the original authors did not intend that Adam and Eve were created as super-human with some kind of omniscience. The story is about obedience, as well as a means by which we can put the responsibility for some of our ills on humanity rather than God.

What are the details in the “story about obedience”? If you know, please respond.

Does God in the story demonstrate the loving Father that Jesus tells us about and demonstrates from the cross?

Absolutely.

When one actually studies the original teachings, one discovers the loving Father. The first example that God is infinitely in love with us is the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 27.

Dang! I keep forgetting that – for some people – the first three historical chapters of Sacred Scripture are a myth from ancient ignorant people who copied legends from surrounding intelligent cultures.

I am waiting to hear all, each and every detail in the mentioned “story about obedience”

 

[simpleas]

When one is interested in understanding, there is the necessity of reading all first three informative chapters of Genesis. The big time information leading up to Original Sin is in the first two chapters before chapter 3. Here our human nature is explained correctly. Adam, because he is a real human, knew exactly what would happen when he shattered his relationship with his Creator.

Correct. However, when we listen to the wrong people, we get the wrong “truth.”



When we listen to the wrong people, we discover that it is o.k. to think and believe anything we personally prefer.

Correct. Still, those thoughts follow logically from the stuff the wrong people are teaching.

I may have been listening to the wrong people my whole life then. I have some missing periods in my Catholic teaching, lot’s of interruption when I was being prepared for Sacraments, so I did my best at understanding what was happening.

Sometimes I had to self teach myself or not even progress in adult formation for many years in order to understand my own faith.
So there is personal belief for me in some places, not needing to rely on every written word in order to behave in a correct manner even when everyone around you is sinning to high heaven!

Adam and Eve were always going to sin anyway, God knew it, we know it, cos we know curiosity usually gets the better of us in some way. If they are our first parents then we know this as humans.

Sorry for this if it sounds like a rant…

 

[grannymh]

I may have been listening to the wrong people my whole life then. I have some missing periods in my Catholic teaching, lot’s of interruption when I was being prepared for Sacraments, so I did my best at understanding what was happening.

Sometimes I had to self teach myself or not even progress in adult formation for many years in order to understand my own faith.
So there is personal belief for me in some places, not needing to rely on every written word in order to behave in a correct manner even when everyone around you is sinning to high heaven!

Adam and Eve were always going to sin anyway, God knew it, we know it, cos we know curiosity usually gets the better of us in some way. If they are our first parents then we know this as humans.

Sorry for this if it sounds like a rant…

Similar has happened to other CAF posters. I have read many, many posts. And felt very, very sad.

We are on the final leg of posting. We can almost touch the finish line of 1,000 posts. Personally, I have spent time investigating those famous first three chapters of Genesis. I was surprised often.

Now, I wonder what would readers like to know…
You can PM me.

 

[goout]

I am waiting to hear all, each and every detail in the mentioned “story about obedience”

The Truth of Genesis has a good deal to do with obedience.
Does the word “story” cause anxiety? If by story we mean something devoid of substantial meaning then yes it is a problem.
Story need not be devoid of meaning. Story carries too much negative connotation.

 

[grannymh]

The Truth of Genesis has a good deal to do with obedience.
Does the word “story” cause anxiety? If by story we mean something devoid of substantial meaning then yes it is a problem.
Story need not be devoid of meaning. Story carries too much negative connotation.

“Story” does not cause anxiety. As a retired journalist, what causes anxiety is not knowing all the details.

Therefore, would you kindly give me all the details of the “obedience story.”

 

[simpleas]

The word obedience isn’t in the first three chapters of Genesis, but neither is the words Original sin, yet we teach that original sin happened with the original couple. Obedience too is taught from the chapters, or rather dis-obedience.

St. Paul interprets Jesus as the New Adam in Rom 5:14 and 1 Cor 15:22, 24, whose obedience brings life just as the Old Adam’s disobedience brought death.

 

[grannymh]

Apparently, people can talk big about the “story of obedience” in the first three smiling chapters of Genesis, but they cannot deliver the details.