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

[simpleas]

God puts no conditions on His love. But He allows us the freedom to reject that unconditional love.

I had said this a few posts back:

For God’s love to be unconditional, there should be no conditions placed upon the human, is what I’m exploring.

Humans have their conditions.

Yes, we can reject God’s love, probably when we have never really known it.

We seem to think A&E must’ve known God’s love, must have had knowledge of this and that, yet because of freewill, they could reject that unconditional love.

There was no condition made upon them in the garden, they were warned not to eat of the tree, because it would bring death.

Condition : a situation that must exist before something else is possible or permitted:

Warning : a statement or event that warns of something or that serves as a cautionary example:

 

[grannymh]

God puts no conditions on His love. But He allows us the freedom to reject that unconditional love.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny,

Is it really us who are telling God how He has to unconditionally jump in loving us?

Actually, no. Jesus loved us unconditionally, and forgave us, without condition, from the cross. We can know God’s love through prayer and experience, but without the grounding of the Gospel, we have no foundation. The Gospel is a guide to a journey within. So it is God loving us unconditionally that begins the process, not the other way around. God created us in His image, an image of such unlimited love. We in turn reflect it back and onto one another once we are in tune with our “true self” within.

Why is there a kind of transference or projection of our ideas about loving and forgiving other humans plopped on God?

Because He “plopped” it on us in the first place.

How can there be an issue of obedience when so many Catholics have decided that they are correct in denying the existence of Adam in one way or another?

Thank you simpleas for sharing your “exploration” with us. Asking God about conditions can be scary. Yet, Catholics who believe in the truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis can find the deep answers.

Yes, there are deep answers in Genesis. However, a Catholic should begin any scripture study with the Gospels.

In modern terminology, the State of Sanctifying Grace depends on the obedience condition in that relationship with Divinity-

Yes, relationship involves two. Obedience is a condition of relationship, not love, not forgiveness. God always loves and forgives us, but this love cannot be made real to us unless we are involved in relationship. Our human conscience, however, only “loves” us when we are obedient.

When I was a child in Catholic grade school, I learned that Adam’s obedience was necessary. Currently, as I was actually using the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *I finally figured out the simple truth in the first two sentences of CCC 396.

**CCC 396 **God created man in His image and established Him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.
​

Yes, we cannot live this friendship unless we are in relationship, which involves submitting freely. If we say that God’s love and forgiveness itself are conditional on a person’s behavior, then this is not free submission, it is coerced. If I tell someone “I will only love and forgive you if you behave” there is an element of coercion. This is not saying that the coerced friendship has no value, though. The coerced friendship has its place, it is a start, it can lead to repentance and discipline, all good! However, when we love God and one another without any coercive element, there is real freedom, a freedom from fear. “Living the friendship” is a journey toward greater awareness, freedom, and of course, Love.

the base for a return of the ancient heresy Arianism.

This is an appeal to have others join in fear. Create an enemy, then condemn it. It is divisive and against the Spirit. Such distinctions are the beginnings of schism:

The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered “that there might be no schism in the body” (1 Corinthians 12:25).

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Pointing fingers at a nebulous “return of Arianism” only serves to bring about fear and suspicion. If there is someone saying something against the teachings of the church, then this should be focused on and addressed. In the mean time, suspicion feeds schism, and the feeding of schism is in itself disobedient, right Granny? We are One Body in this one Lord. You intend to make sure that readers keep all this in mind, correct?

In modern language, the dismissal of the importance of the Original Sin is one of the steps to a Big Tent church which sets aside any annoying Catholic doctrine.

Pope Pius XII warned us…

Pope Pius XII was Holy Father from 1939-1958, Granny. A lot has happened since then, most notably Vatican II. Pope Pius did not warn us agains “emerging Christianity” because those words are from this century. Pope Pius was concerned with atheism, but atheism was not a “big tent” problem. The “big tent” problem was the perceived threat of the influence of Protestantism, which was a big issue at the time. Do you remember when marriages between Protestants and Catholics were forbidden or greatly discouraged? We aren’t there any more Granny; those are times we can gladly kiss goodbye! ​

 

[grannymh]

.

Condition : a situation that must exist before something else is possible or permitted:

The informative first three chapters of Genesis clearly states the exact situation of Adam that must exist before a relationship with his Divine Creator is possible or permitted. Therefore, it is the basic condition obedience which is related to the relationship situation which must be followed so that a unique union is possible or permitted.

It appears to me that unconditional conditional love has been substituted for the reality of the original relationship between the creature Adam and his Creator God. Getting rid of the nasty Adam is an attempt to twist Catholic doctrines to comport with personal preferences. For example. The emerging Big Tent proposal can be traced back to the 1800’s when Darwin’s natural science became prominent.

"Enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” is a key point in Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 and 12. This goes beyond simple atheism. “Eienism” is a description of the current Big Tent progressive Christianity.

---

Today and every day…
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Safety_Pin.jpg

 

[OneSheep]

Condition : a situation that must exist before something else is possible or permitted:

This is really key, simpleas, and I’m glad you brought it forth. There is an enormous difference between “possible” and “permitted” when we are talking about God’s love and relationship. Relationship is not possible without our participation. However, it is permitted, absolutely, because He always waits for us, understands us, and forgives us.

Edit: Whew! Looks like Granny and I both really honed in on that at the same time Simpleas! Both views are totally acceptable in the Church! (note: I did not say anything about Adam)

 

[grannymh]

Information for our Gentle Readers

My post 419 was in the midst of editing when the limit was reached. You can tell I was editing by the typo in the word “eirenism”. In general, eirenism refers to a peaceful state of mind. That peaceful state of mind is what the current Big Tent emerging progressive Christianity proposal is offering to all Catholics. This invitation, which denies the reality of Adam, can be traced back to the 1800’s when Darwin’s natural science became prominent. In improved Catholicism, there is no reason to differentiate between “possible” and “permitted” because every view is permitted. The goal is to shake hands without referring to a particular belief system.

When we take the necessary time to grasp the modern significance of paragraphs 11 and 12, *Humani Generis, *we find that Pope Pius XII used the word “imprudent” as a clear description of eirenism. There is only one view of imprudence. The idea that different views including the disappearance of Adam are totally acceptable in the Catholic Church is wrong according to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Adam as an allegory option that is not necessary is exactly what various other Catholics propose. It is one of the handy tools to bring down the Catholic Church from within.

From Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

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.

---

The human person is always worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

The informative first three chapters of Genesis clearly states the exact situation of Adam that must exist before a relationship with his Divine Creator is possible or permitted. Therefore, it is the basic condition obedience which is related to the relationship situation which must be followed so that a unique union is possible or permitted.

It appears to me that unconditional conditional love has been substituted for the reality of the original relationship between the creature Adam and his Creator God. Getting rid of the nasty Adam is an attempt to twist Catholic doctrines to comport with personal preferences. For example. The emerging Big Tent proposal can be traced back to the 1800’s when Darwin’s natural science became prominent.

"Enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” is a key point in Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 and 12. This goes beyond simple atheism. “Eienism” is a description of the current Big Tent progressive Christianity.

---

Today and every day…
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Safety_Pin.jpg

I don’t read it as a condition, I read it as a warning.

Why two people who exist in innocent obedience would rebel against such existence is mind boggling.

Innocent and obedient until hearing about another way or being shown it by another. Something just doesn’t add up.

 

[simpleas]

This is really key, simpleas, and I’m glad you brought it forth. There is an enormous difference between “possible” and “permitted” when we are talking about God’s love and relationship. Relationship is not possible without our participation. However, it is permitted, absolutely, because He always waits for us, understands us, and forgives us.

Edit: Whew! Looks like Granny and I both really honed in on that at the same time Simpleas! Both views are totally acceptable in the Church! (note: I did not say anything about Adam)

Well this thread is about Adam and Eve, and ourselves to a degree.

With A&E I’ll assume God loved them, but it’s this idea of love from God that can still let us fall into sin. God loved them, but he planted a tree that would be most devastating to their human lives should they eat of it. There is a separation now, not totally, but enough for humans to become destroyers of themselves. They will need to continually choose between good and evil all of their human life.

None of this is God’s fault…so why did he plant that tree? Why have the tree there, could have been something less serious than spiritual loss so that humans wouldn’t do the bad things they do now and cause suffering where it could be avoided.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t read it as a condition, I read it as a warning.

This is a free speech public message board. You are welcomed to your own opinion.

Why two people who exist in innocent obedience would rebel against such existence is mind boggling.

It is very mind boggling because the Catholic Church does not teach that existence in innocent obedience is an essential element in human nature. Adam has a human nature like ours and we certainly do not exist in innocent obedience. Human existence includes the right to choose obedience to the Creator or to reject obedience to the Creator.

Innocent and obedient until hearing about another way or being shown it by another. Something just doesn’t add up.

Of course something just doesn’t add up when one does not consider the condition attached to the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. That condition is known as “obedience” to the supreme Being, the one and only Divine Creator.

The action of obedience is why God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. A real true relationship between humanity and Divinity includes the action of acceptance. We are not told to sit on our thumbs.

---

The human person one sees in the mirror
is worthy of profound respect.

 

[fhansen]

Well this thread is about Adam and Eve, and ourselves to a degree.

With A&E I’ll assume God loved them, but it’s this idea of love from God that can still let us fall into sin. God loved them, but he planted a tree that would be most devastating to their human lives should they eat of it. There is a separation now, not totally, but enough for humans to become destroyers of themselves. They will need to continually choose between good and evil all of their human life.

None of this is God’s fault…so why did he plant that tree? Why have the tree there, could have been something less serious than spiritual loss so that humans wouldn’t do the bad things they do now and cause suffering where it could be avoided.

The tree, itself, was an integral aspect of them having free will. No free will=no tree

 

[goout]

Well this thread is about Adam and Eve, and ourselves to a degree.

With A&E I’ll assume God loved them, but it’s this idea of love from God that can still let us fall into sin. God loved them, but he planted a tree that would be most devastating to their human lives should they eat of it. There is a separation now, not totally, but enough for humans to become destroyers of themselves. They will need to continually choose between good and evil all of their human life.

None of this is God’s fault…so why did he plant that tree? Why have the tree there, could have been something less serious than spiritual loss so that humans wouldn’t do the bad things they do now and cause suffering where it could be avoided.

He planted the tree because God creates all that is good. The tree is good. (we could probably debate the exact nature of the tree for an eternity…doesn’t matter for this point).
It’s not that the tree is bad, it’s man’s response to it and abuse of it that is bad.

 

[grannymh]

He planted the tree because God creates all that is good. The tree is good. (we could probably debate the exact nature of the tree for an eternity…doesn’t matter for this point).
It’s not that the tree is bad, it’s man’s response to it and abuse of it that is bad.

 

[grannymh]

M is for our Memory of Adam

Clarification for our Gentle Readers.

Yes, the stealth return of the ancient heresy Arianism is very fearful because it can change or omit our memory of Adam himself.

Today’s Arianism does not require the full divinity of Jesus Christ. The recognition of Jesus as a great preacher and reformer of society, even a miracle worker, is all that is necessary in the proposed “eirenism” of the Big Tent. (Please refer to post 421.)

When the memory of Adam is not mentioned when we discuss the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity, then it is not necessary for someone fully Divine to restore that relationship and subsequently establish the Catholic Church. The hidden goal of modern Arianism is to reduce the power of the Sacraments to the point that being sorry for one’s mortal sin, which beaks our relationship with God, is not necessary because there is “unconditional love.”

Original Sin becomes a fly in the ointment. And the descendants of Adam – What will happen to them when they seek the Original Relationship with God aka the State of Sanctifying Grace? Will they be given the ticket that anything goes as long as the “state of mind is peaceful”?

***M is for our Memory of Adam ***needs a lot of work for each individual reader of the necessary first three chapters of Genesis.

---

Each human person is worthy
of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

This is a free speech public message board. You are welcomed to your own opinion.

It is very mind boggling because the Catholic Church does not teach that existence in innocent obedience is an essential element in human nature. Adam has a human nature like ours and we certainly do not exist in innocent obedience. Human existence includes the right to choose obedience to the Creator or to reject obedience to the Creator.

Of course something just doesn’t add up when one does not consider the condition attached to the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. That condition is known as “obedience” to the supreme Being, the one and only Divine Creator.

The action of obedience is why God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. A real true relationship between humanity and Divinity includes the action of acceptance. We are not told to sit on our thumbs.

---

The human person one sees in the mirror
is worthy of profound respect.

I wouldn’t say it’s my opinion, it’s more of a way that I interpret what is written

I didn’t say or mean to imply that the church teaches *that existence in innocent obedience is an essential element in human nature. *
I was referring to the state in which A&E lived by before sin.

Yes obedience seems to be more important than free submission.

 

[simpleas]

The tree, itself, was an integral aspect of them having free will. No free will=no tree

God could have chosen another way to teach his children about love,respect and choosing right from wrong.

But he is God and I am me… Enough said…

 

[simpleas]

He planted the tree because God creates all that is good. The tree is good. (we could probably debate the exact nature of the tree for an eternity…doesn’t matter for this point).
It’s not that the tree is bad, it’s man’s response to it and abuse of it that is bad.

Can see it that way, yes. That was a one time event however, for which the human race still suffers.

 

[grannymh]

God could have chosen another way to teach his children about love,respect and choosing right from wrong.

But he is God and I am me… Enough said…

It is true that God could choose any possible way to teach His children about love, respect and choosing right from wrong.

The question which is being discussed involves the specific teaching about the original friendship relationship with God aka Adam’s Original State of Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. We must dig deeper than love, respect and choosing right from wrong.

We cannot go deeper when our Memory of Adam is lost.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I wouldn’t say it’s my opinion, it’s more of a way that I interpret what is written

I didn’t say or mean to imply that the church teaches *that existence in innocent obedience is an essential element in human nature. *
I was referring to the state in which A&E lived by before sin.

Yes obedience seems to be more important than free submission.

It is precisely “free submission” which creates proper obedience.

 

[goout]

Can see it that way, yes. That was a one time event however, for which the human race still suffers.

I don’t have time to flesh out, but that’s not fully true.
Yes there was an event: original sin, that doesn’t mean we don’t all participate in it and contribute to it, and perpetuate it.

We still exercise and sometimes abuse free will.

 

[fhansen]

God could have chosen another way to teach his children about love,respect and choosing right from wrong.

But he is God and I am me… Enough said…

I just meant that the possibility for temptation would always exist for a created rational being with free will to disobey God, to undertake determining morality for themselves-which is what the eating of the fruit represented.

But in this life* now* it’s as if humankind is given time, experience, grace, revelation-light-etc, to come to our senses, to come to the willingness to obey, to reverse Adam’s decision so to speak, for all the right reasons. God apparently wants it to be our choice, to the greatest degree possible, as a matter of justice, rather than overwhelm us directly first with His incomparable desirability. In this way our own justice is all the greater; we’re orienting ourselves towards the good, being asked to recognize, acknowledge, and embrace the good in the midst of a world that contains many evils as well, without being totally captivated by or ensconced in the good first of all. In any case we’re given the choice: life over death, good over evil, God over no God.