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

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only Adam participated in the Original Sin. None of us are the original first human on planet earth. The fact that there is only one original human Adam guarantees that all of us are redeemed by Jesus Christ.

What we participate in are the effects or results of Adam’s act of disobedience. We have received a wounded nature. (CCC 405}
Every human, descended from Adam and Eve,
is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
Only Adam participated in the Original Sin. None of us are the original first human on planet earth. The fact that there is only one original human Adam guarantees that all of us are redeemed by Jesus Christ.

What we participate in are the effects or results of Adam’s act of disobedience. We have received a wounded nature. (CCC 405}
Every human, descended from Adam and Eve,
is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
That’s why I contrasted and compared Adam’s act with the implications for all of us.
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
Click to expand...
402** All men are implicated** in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
Click to expand...
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.
…
Click to expand...
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
Click to expand...
 
grannymh said:
Only Adam participated in the Original Sin. None of us are the original first human on planet earth.

What we participate in are the effects or results of Adam’s act of disobedience. We have received a wounded nature. (CCC 405}
Every human, descended from Adam and Eve,
is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, but being a chip off the old block, the relationship between ourselves and Adam’s sin might not be a bit more direct? Adam’s disobedient nature is shared don’t you think? I believe we do sort of echo, participate in, and confirm Adam’s sin, his preference for himself over God, his proclivity for exploring ungodly territory just in case it might hold something of higher value…IMO, and my experience, FWIW.
 
N is for Nonsense about Adam and Eve
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
goout said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just that I don’t remember giving my consent to original sin.
 
grannymh 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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you intend to deep deeper than love, nor how you can remember someone you did not know personally.
 
fhansen said:
Ah yes, but being a chip off the old block, the relationship between ourselves and Adam’s sin might not be a bit more direct? Adam’s disobedient nature is shared don’t you think? I believe we do sort of echo, participate in, and confirm Adam’s sin, his preference for himself over God, his proclivity for exploring ungodly territory just in case it might hold something of higher value…IMO, and my experience, FWIW.
Click to expand...
I respect that this is your opinion/experience of what it means to sin, and if I’m reading you right, preferring yourself over God (not sure what that means), but we all have very different opinions/experiences in life, about God, or no God at all.

I had been thinking along the lines lately about how we do interpret what we believe about God from how we have experienced life, how we handled life happening to us from childhood to adulthood. Situations have a profound effect on us, we can be someone who falls easily,or one who has a stronger will not to sin…(doesn’t mean anyone is better than anyone else though).

Thanks for your opinion 👍
 
simpleas said:
I respect that this is your opinion/experience of what it means to sin, and if I’m reading you right, preferring yourself over God (not sure what that means), but we all have very different opinions/experiences in life, about God, or no God at all.

I had been thinking along the lines lately about how we do interpret what we believe about God from how we have experienced life, how we handled life happening to us from childhood to adulthood. Situations have a profound effect on us, we can be someone who falls easily,or one who has a stronger will not to sin…(doesn’t mean anyone is better than anyone else though).

Thanks for your opinion 👍
Click to expand...
The hard truth is that these “lines” lead away from the Catholic Church. It is a good example of preferring one’s own intelligence over Divine Revelation.
 
simpleas said:
I respect that this is your opinion/experience of what it means to sin, and if I’m reading you right, preferring yourself over God (not sure what that means), but we all have very different opinions/experiences in life, about God, or no God at all.

I had been thinking along the lines lately about how we do interpret what we believe about God from how we have experienced life, how we handled life happening to us from childhood to adulthood. Situations have a profound effect on us, we can be someone who falls easily,or one who has a stronger will not to sin…(doesn’t mean anyone is better than anyone else though).

Thanks for your opinion 👍
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s my opinion, but it’s also, IMO :), an opinion informed by Catholic teachings And.I guess I’m a little surprised you’d ask about the meaning of preferring oneself to God considering the topic here.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

Anyway, its my opinion, based largely on my experience, that the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.
 
grannymh said:
The hard truth is that these “lines” lead away from the Catholic Church. It is a good example of preferring one’s own intelligence over Divine Revelation.
Click to expand...
The unfortunate truth, granny, is that some people, even if advanced in years it seems, tend to actually learn very little from Divine Revelation, other than how to rotely repeat it at times perhaps while assuming the role of its grand defender.
 
fhansen said:
The unfortunate truth, granny, is that some people, even if advanced in age, tend to actually learn very little from Divine Revelation, other than how to rotely repeat it at times while assuming the role of its grand defender perhaps.
Click to expand...
Here are some examples of everyday Divine Revelation which are available to ordinary folk, regardless of age.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Divine Revelation.
When one is not sleeping during Sunday Mass, one can learn a lot about Divine Revelation. For example, Chapter 6, Gospel of John.

The literal existence of Adam and Original Sin is Divine Revelation.
Unfortunately, there are other Catholics who do know that they are updating, improving, or flat out denying Divine Revelation. Updating to “modern” life is a great selling point.

The current mysterious unconditional conditional human version of life, aimed at the younger crowd, comes from other Catholics who do know about the Divine Revelation of free will and conscience and want to amend them so that everyone is comfortable about their personal choices.

Divine Revelation is often known as a pain in the whatever.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
The hard truth is that these “lines” lead away from the Catholic Church. It is a good example of preferring one’s own intelligence over Divine Revelation.
Click to expand...
But one doesn’t have to leave one’s brain (intelligence) at the door when entering the church.After all God made us with capabilities 🙂
 
fhansen said:
Yes, that’s my opinion, but it’s also, IMO :), an opinion informed by Catholic teachings And.I guess I’m a little surprised you’d ask about the meaning of preferring oneself to God considering the topic here.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

Anyway, its my opinion, based largely on my experience, that the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.
Click to expand...
Yes I know that quote from the CCC. I was thinking more about how a mere spiritual creature such as us humans could ever think we would be like God, who is pure spirit.
 
simpleas said:
I’m not sure how you intend to deep deeper than love, nor how you can remember someone you did not know personally.
Click to expand...
One of the ways we can dig deeper than loving an individual would be when we expand our knowledge about why someone makes their individual choices. The best example is the constant question – Why did Adam do what he did? The better questions are – Is Adam capable of doing what Catholicism says he did? Is Original Sin possible? We can still love Adam at the same time that we are attempting to go deeper into his rational mind. Obviously, we first need to credit Adam with a rational mind. Genesis 1: 27.

An example of remembering someone we do not know personally is when we attend a play by Shakespeare. We remember Jesus Christ when He was on earth.

The difficulty is that when we try to remember Adam, the majority of our contemporaries have a difficulty deciding if Adam is real. Should we have a memory of an allegory? Which allegory? Can we really love an allegory person?

No wonder many people say “O heck with it.”
 
simpleas said:
Yes I know that quote from the CCC. I was thinking more about how a mere spiritual creature such as us humans could ever think we would be like God, who is pure spirit.
Click to expand...
That is exactly why Catholics should study all first three chapters of Genesis
in the light of Catholic doctrines.
Genesis 1: 26-27
The human person is worthy of our profound respect.
 
N is for Nonsense about Adam and Eve

Currently, in my humble opinion, intellectual charitable possible nonsense is gaining power. :o
Each person everywhere is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
For our gentle readers:

Please note that our friend Granny is not referring to anything that is actually occurring, only what is theoretical. There is no reason to fear what does not exist. While Jehovah’s witnesses do not believe in the full divinity of Christ, there is no one in the Catholic Church expressing this view, as far as I know.

In addition, the whole idea that repentance and sorrow as the means of reconciliation is diminished when expressing God’s unconditional love has no basis whatsoever. As you can see in my signature, Pope Francis is not saying that the sacraments are not important. “God always forgives us” is another way of expressing His unconditional love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top