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

[goout]

It’s still a mystery. Benevolent people do not punish children for their parents errors. We are created in His image, so God must be at least as benevolent as the loving people we know on Earth. If that isn’t enough, our omnipotent God could easily recreate people every generation if He so chooses. If you explain one mystery of this, 4 new ones pop up!
…
New wording of the mystery: "Why would God will that “man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” when He already knew that man would defy Him and he could have just created him without preternature and grace in the first place with less grief?

Have you ever met a child who’s parent didn’t allow the child to suffer consequences for freely chosen actions? The result is tragic.
You and I both know adults like this, who are in reality still infants. They don’t know how to love, because they do not know what freedom is.

By shielding them from freely chosen consequences, their parents have not loved them well. In contrast, God loves in perfection.
Food for thought.

 

[OneSheep]

wordonfire.org/resources/video/reflections-on-original-sin/305/

Thanks, GO!

I am a big fan of Bishop Barron. So, the next question (after one watches the video) is “why does the human desire to define what is good and what is evil?”. Specifically, “why does the human do this sometimes in opposition to what is presented by Church or divine authority?”

Well, when it comes to the opposition part, we again have to refer to ignorance, right? And then we go back to the ignorance mystery.

When it comes to our own “arrogating” concerning discernment of good and evil, there is a very autonomous aspect of conscience formation. Conscience formation involves experiencing the world, suffering, and drawing conclusions; we really do this as individuals. Yes, we can learn a lot from authority, but sometimes we don’t believe and then we end up having to learn the “hard way”, right?

So, in a sense, our “original arrogating” is actually not so non-justifiable. God has placed within each of us the capacity to form a conscience, and we truly desire to know what is helpful and what is hurtful; our “true self”, our deepest self, is one connected to an infinite Love. This is not saying that relativism has merit. Relativism, the belief that “right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder” (when all vocabulary is congruent between people, I note!) is simply an error, an untruth.

And, when we are believing an untruth, we are back to ignorance, correct?

To me, there is more to be found about original sin in this clause:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

The sin, the harm, is born in conception of a distorted image, an image ultimately corrected by Jesus.

 

[goout]

Thanks, GO!

I am a big fan of Bishop Barron. So, the next question (after one watches the video) is “why does the human desire to define what is good and what is evil?”. Specifically, “why does the human do this sometimes in opposition to what is presented by Church or divine authority?”

Well, when it comes to the opposition part, we again have to refer to ignorance, right? And then we go back to the ignorance mystery.

We oppose the good.
Defaulting to ignorance to justify our opposition is presumption. It’s abdicating our responsibility as free people.
Adam and Eve had eyes to see the consequences of their opposition. They knew death was a consequence of opposition to God. They cannot claim ignorance.

Free will is not mysterious in a rationalist way. We know enough about ourselves and God to engage in good decision making.

 

[grannymh]

A gentle suggestion for our gentle readers –

Considering that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, can be a tad difficult to read; there is a lot to be found in CCC 399.

A gentle suggestion is to be careful of quote mining or cherry picking. This older than dirt granny is Queen of the Cherry Pickers so I do know a few tricks.

A gentle suggestion is to avoid confusing a Divine God with a human parent. They are not the same. This means that the CCC paragraphs 396-399, including the cross reference in the margin CCC 1730, need to be read in their entirety.

 

[simpleas]

wordonfire.org/resources/video/reflections-on-original-sin/305/

Being self conscious can be a good thing too. In order to grow we have to be aware of who we are.

Why is God in the pictures depicted as an old man, like Zeus? Did all people who believe in the one God think of him as an old grand father?

I suppose not knowing what God looks like, one needs some sort of image to relate to.

 

[goout]

Being self conscious can be a good thing too. In order to grow we have to be aware of who we are.

We are most fully aware of ourselves in relation to others. The ultimate other is God. Being self aware for sake of self leaves God out. I believe that’s what Bp Barron is getting at.

Why is God in the pictures depicted as an old man, like Zeus? Did all people who believe in the one God think of him as an old grand father?

I suppose not knowing what God looks like, one needs some sort of image to relate to.

The pics are a culturally conditioned representation of God, as are all pictures of him. We do our best. St Faustina was not satisfied with her artist’s depiction of Christ, no matter what he did it did not capture the mystery and majesty of Christ.

I have also seen pics of the laughing Jesus, which I like a lot. But no picture fully captures the essence.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Well, when it comes to the opposition part, we again have to refer to ignorance, right? And then we go back to the ignorance mystery.

Who are you speaking of here?

A&E would not have been ignorant I don’t think. If the trees are a metaphor for all types of knowledge, then they would have had some degree of intelligence that would or should have made them think twice about the consequence of their actions.

I know you don’t take the story literally, that is why I ask. If you are referring to us, then I agree there is ignorance among people (including myself) in all parts of the world, some people just don’t know certain things.
I wouldn’t call people who reject our faith ignorant, some have study much into it and still decide they can not practise what is preached.

It’s this ‘it’s my own personal opinion/way of living’ like Fr B referred to. Maybe because we do have an individual mind/soul, and just because some people prefer one way to God and some another doesn’t mean they are ignorant.

 

[simpleas]

We are most fully aware of ourselves in relation to others. The ultimate other is God. Being self aware for sake of self leaves God out. I believe that’s what Bp Barron is getting at.

The pics are a culturally conditioned representation of God, as are all pictures of him. We do our best. St Faustina was not satisfied with her artist’s depiction of Christ, no matter what he did it did not capture the mystery and majesty of Christ.

I have also seen pics of the laughing Jesus, which I like a lot. But no picture fully captures the essence.

How can we be self aware without God. God is within us too, when we know ourselves we are better able to reflect Gods love I think.

 

[goout]

How can we be self aware without God. God is within us too, when we know ourselves we are better able to reflect Gods love I think.

yes.

 

[cfauster]

To me, there is more to be found about original sin in this clause:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

The sin, the harm, is born in conception of a distorted image, an image ultimately corrected by Jesus.

That reminds me of the parable of the talents (Matt. 25: 14-30). Here’s the part - starting in vs. 24 - of which the above from OneSheep reminds me : “Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant!* So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?”

I like Fr. Barron’s thoughts on the parable, which he says he learned from Fr. Robert Schoenstene.

 

[grannymh]

E is for Eve

Genesis 1: 27; Genesis 2: 18; Genesis 2: 20; Genesis 2: 23;
Genesis 3: 2; Genesis 3: 6; Genesis 3: 15; Genesis 3: 20

I respect and love the Catholic Church, especially its teachings regarding
humankind – including Adam and the explanation of Original Sin.

 

[OneSheep]

We oppose the good.
Defaulting to ignorance to justify our opposition is presumption. It’s abdicating our responsibility as free people.
Adam and Eve had eyes to see the consequences of their opposition. They knew death was a consequence of opposition to God. They cannot claim ignorance.

Hi GO,

Are you sure about this? If we start with an aware A&E, it is very difficult to make the case that they knew what they were doing. For example, start with the question, “What reason did Adam have for eating the fruit?” Well, he saw that it was good to eat and wanted wisdom. If following the scene with God he thought, “that was still a worthwhile choice I made.”, then he was truly aware of what he was doing. If instead he thought “that was an error, I should have known better” then at the time of his eating he was acting in ignorance.

When I do the sort of thing A&E did, it is because I was blinded by my own desire, the desire itself takes precedent over “objective decision”, it is an unconscious, automatic thing that happens in the mind. We look back and say “I should have known better”, but in the moment we did not know better. In my experience, we can learn from this error, though. When overcome with desire, if I have some awareness I can observe the desire and say, “I am not right in my mind now.”

In the mean time, learning from our errors can be enhanced by some level of self-punishment in the form of an automatic guilt reaction. It serves us to self-condemn, just as God punishes A&E. So if the explanation of Adam’s behavior diminishes this compulsion to punish, the explanation itself can be seen as counter-productive, it is “making excuses”. Explanation is in itself condemned as an attempt to avoid punishment, and punishment is the natural remedy for uncooperative behavior.

Free will is not mysterious in a rationalist way. We know enough about ourselves and God to engage in good decision making.

If this were the case, though, children would be born with a fully developed conscience, but such is not the case. People do develop consciences, and sometimes they develop somewhat malformed. Awareness, too, is a developmental issue. There is blindness, and there is denial. There can occur gaps in thinking because our subconscious mind “does not want to go there”.

Now, if one finds himself resisting the above paragraph, this may be one’s mind resisting anything that threatens the natural compulsion we have punish. We cling tightly to “I should have known better!” and the associated guilt, and it serves our own behavioral choices to remember the guilt. The conscience is a beautiful thing! The conscience itself is in part an awareness of good and evil behaviors, arguably the very thing that A&E sought.

 

[OneSheep]

That reminds me of the parable of the talents (Matt. 25: 14-30). Here’s the part - starting in vs. 24 - of which the above from OneSheep reminds me : “Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant!* So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?”

I like Fr. Barron’s thoughts on the parable, which he says he learned from Fr. Robert Schoenstene.

I have read an explanation of the parable based on the life of ruler who was feared and despised, and the hero of the story is the “wicked, lazy servant” who acted in defiance of the cruel master.

See the section about William R. Herzog II analysis in this article.

 

[OneSheep]

Who are you speaking of here?

A&E would not have been ignorant I don’t think. If the trees are a metaphor for all types of knowledge, then they would have had some degree of intelligence that would or should have made them think twice about the consequence of their actions.

Well, try to think of a really bad choice you made and later regretted it and said, “I should have known better.” or “I knew better” as you engaged in self-condemnation (feel guilt).

You may have had the actual content of “knowing better” in your mind, but the mind is very selective about what it accesses in any one moment. Imagine, for example, that you have a choice of clothing in front of you and your mind is recalling everything you know about puppy dogs. The mind is selective, right? So when we are caught up in desire, our mind can quickly select out the items that may stand in the way of getting what we want. This is blindness. Now, if we self-punish and condemn enough, our mind has a way of better remembering (the next time) that the bit of knowledge we were earlier blind to has more importance, the guilt pushes the important information into our awareness.

In other words, we can say “they would have had some degree of intelligence that would or should have made them think twice about the consequence of their actions”, but if they had not experienced enough guilt, then that “thinking twice” would not have occurred. The “second thought” is the voice of experience! And yes, many of us have to suffer a lot of experiences before we figure it out.

I know you don’t take the story literally, that is why I ask. If you are referring to us, then I agree there is ignorance among people (including myself) in all parts of the world, some people just don’t know certain things.
I wouldn’t call people who reject our faith ignorant, some have study much into it and still decide they can not practise what is preached.

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter – it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. We receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

So, are those who have not met the truth through prayer (or other means) ignorant? Well, “ignorant” is a rather harsh word sometimes. We can perhaps say that they have not experienced this meeting. “Study” is important, but can be over-rated.

It’s this ‘it’s my own personal opinion/way of living’ like Fr B referred to. Maybe because we do have an individual mind/soul, and just because some people prefer one way to God and some another doesn’t mean they are ignorant.

Agreed.

 

[grannymh]

In general, when we start with an aware Adam and Eve, we need to first confirm that they historically existed and that God historically created them as unique creatures on planet Earth.

Obviously, we can look to the Catholic Church for truth. And just as obviously, we can look to other Catholics, public speakers/writers who distort the truth for their purpose of upgrading Divine Revelation to fit their preferred purpose. It should be obvious that many emerging-type words are headed the wrong way …

 

[simpleas]

Well, try to think of a really bad choice you made and later regretted it and said, “I should have known better.” or “I knew better” as you engaged in self-condemnation (feel guilt).

You may have had the actual content of “knowing better” in your mind, but the mind is very selective about what it accesses in any one moment. Imagine, for example, that you have a choice of clothing in front of you and your mind is recalling everything you know about puppy dogs. The mind is selective, right? So when we are caught up in desire, our mind can quickly select out the items that may stand in the way of getting what we want. This is blindness. Now, if we self-punish and condemn enough, our mind has a way of better remembering (the next time) that the bit of knowledge we were earlier blind to has more importance, the guilt pushes the important information into our awareness.

In other words, we can say “they would have had some degree of intelligence that would or should have made them think twice about the consequence of their actions”, but if they had not experienced enough guilt, then that “thinking twice” would not have occurred. The “second thought” is the voice of experience! And yes, many of us have to suffer a lot of experiences before we figure it out.

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter – it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. We receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

So, are those who have not met the truth through prayer (or other means) ignorant? Well, “ignorant” is a rather harsh word sometimes. We can perhaps say that they have not experienced this meeting. “Study” is important, but can be over-rated.

Agreed.

So you were talking about us, not Adam and Eve.

It was you who chose the word ignorant.

I read a slight contradiction in your replies above where you agree that people who find God through other paths are not ignorant, yet those who do not practise our faith, have not found the truth or experienced the meeting.

Are we going off the trend of the thread a bit? If so PM me.

 

[simpleas]

In general, when we start with an aware Adam and Eve, we need to first confirm that they historically existed and that God historically created them as unique creatures on planet Earth.

Obviously, we can look to the Catholic Church for truth. And just as obviously, we can look to other Catholics, public speakers/writers who distort the truth for their purpose of upgrading Divine Revelation to fit their preferred purpose. It should be obvious that many emerging-type words are headed the wrong way …

How do we know that Adam and Eve were fully, 100% aware of the consequences of their actions. Is it just from the words in Genesis? The caution that God gives them about death, it is only death that God warns them about in Genesis, but after God tells Eve she will experience pain in bearing children and be subject to her husband, Adam will find the earth hard to work with. So there where more consequences to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil than spiritual/physical death.

 

[grannymh]

How do we know that Adam and Eve were fully, 100% aware of the consequences of their actions.

First, we have to completely believe in a Divine Creator, Genesis 1: 1. Yes or No

Second, there has to be complete acceptance that the author of the first three chapters of Genesis historically existed. Yes or No

Third, we need seek out Catholic teachings. Yes or No.

---

In general, I am a tad concerned about proselytizing.

 

[grannymh]

From post 350.

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter – it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. We receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

Obviously, the truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth enters into the Catholic Church. ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’

Pope Francis wants us to meet with the Supreme Truth: Jesus the great truth truly present on the altar before us. Catholics receive this Supreme Truth when they receive Jesus in Holy Communion. Obviously, we do not own the truth like a material possession; we receive the Truth when we receive the Holy Eucharist during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

For our interested Gentle Readers, here are some Gospel references.

Link to Holy Scripture: usccb.org/bible/john/14

Chapter 14, Gospel of John

15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,
17
the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l
18
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.*

Chapter 14, Gospel of John

25
“I have told you this while I am with you.
26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.r
27
Peace* I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.%between%

 

[grannymh]

oh cmon granny. You can talk to me, see?. Reconciliation, seeing “eyelash to eyelash” is what God wants. I’ll be charitable and so will you… :]

I am very happy in the Catholic Church.

I am learning a lot about the Catholic historical reality of Adam and Original Sin. I do hope you will understand that my energy is involved in understanding Catholic Original Sin as the historical author describes along with Catholic truths. As I learn more about Catholic teachings, there may be times when I might comment on what I find in your posts. Thank you.

Maybe later, I will have the energy to understand your organization and then learn what you are promoting.