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.
R is for the Realty of the true Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.
Unfortunately, due to the Emerging Catholic Family Church, which has been hinted above (Breaking News in post 514), there is some confusion within the real Catholic Church. Thus, we need to remind ourselves that real Catholic doctrines are not family opinions. Unfortunately, the Popular Emerging Catholic Family Big Tent Church can draw people away from the reality of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ and not by a human committee.
 
fhansen said:
Well, according to the Church the Creator/created distinction was lost on them. And this goes far to explain why they didn’t heed God’s voice; who one listens to and obeys speaks volumes about who ones God actually is. Likewise thinking they could** “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” **(CC C398), does not exactly square well with someone who recognizes their limitations. And I think failure to recognize ones limitations continues to play a major role in this world’s problems, one of many facts that confirms to me that A&E’s sin of disobedience is still alive and well in their descendants in one way or another.
Click to expand...
I think we are saying the same thing just differently.
 
R is for the Realty of the true Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

When the word "Realty"is used, we not only consider the Catholic doctrines, but we need to consider time and place. Understanding the protocol of the visible Catholic Church is still important even though it is rarely referred to. The current dismissal of proper protocol occurs when a few Catholics try to reform the Church instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. Please consider the teachings about the Mystical Body of Christ. Note that it is not many mystical bodies (groups following this or that Catholic rebel) joined into one family or “one size fits all” tent.

We need to be careful so that we do not attach “doctrinal reality” to valuable speculations. Speculations from theologians from the Scholastic Period and the current centuries are useful when they are not used by Catholic rebels to change/update already proclaimed Catholic doctrines.

Here is the explanation for using non-doctrine information in the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *Catholics must remember that not every verse, word, homily, etc., from great intelligent persons, including that wonderful author of Genesis, first three chapters, automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

We do not need to worry about which fruit would cause a tummy ache.😉
From Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

CCC **20 **The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.
CCC 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.

In addition, the *Catechism’s *“Index of Citations” beginning on page 689 has major information. Check out the citations from the first three chapters of Genesis. :D:D:D
Every member of the human species, beginning with Eve and Adam,
are worthy of profound respect.
 
OneSheep said:
Good Morning fhansen,

Plenty of “worth” there! I wanted to focus on the bold, but the rest of it was so well-stated I decided not to pick the pieces out of their original context.

The added layer of difficulty arises in the fact that we know through Christ that God forgives us without condition, His mercy is infinite. In addition, we know that Jesus calls us to “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect”.

The human can look upon what happened in the story of A&E and see that the two messed up, they were disobedient and were punished. The story sends this point home well for people. The problem is that since God is perfect, God’s behavior in the story is to be seen as perfect, including some rather permanent inflictions like pain in childbirth and other sufferings - for all generations of His “beloved”. While the story steers people in the direction away from blaming God for our human condition (a condition of suffering sometimes, contrary to what we want) it does leave the reader with a rather negative anthropology, one of self blame for his own God-given nature and circumstance. In addition, our loving Father is shown to give us a gift He knew we would fail to hold in perfection, then He took the gift away with permanence. If this is “perfection”, then the human called to such perfection will behave uncharitably. In addition, we know our Father as infinitely merciful, but to many readers the story does not show a Father who understands and forgives, so again the reader is left with a contradicting picture of what it means to forgive, what “perfection” looks like.

Jesus points directly toward an answer to “who to blame”, he lives and suffers in giving us the answer. There is no one to blame (think negatively toward, be compelled to punish) for our condition. When we do blame, we are called to forgive. God is not punishing us, and we are not, by nature, self-destructive. Indeed, God has given us a nature such that we desire to survive, to thrive, and to love. Yes, we are fallible, but we suffer and learn from our errors, we develop. The bottom line is that we can thank God every day for the gift of life and the gift of being human. Yes, we suffer sometimes, but the gift of faith guides us in knowing that everything is going to be okay and seeing the good that comes from even the worst of circumstances.
Click to expand...
I think there are two basic different opinions here. You seem to be saying that man is innocent, and ignorant: innocent because he’s ignorant perhaps, or innocent in any case because he’s simply acting naturally, behaving in line with the faculties he’s been given by God.

But the Church teaches that man is lacking in the perfect innocence he was created in, and that less-than-perfect-innocence seems to me to be most clearly or obviously manifested in the worst atrocities man commits, acts that make savage animals look self-restrained; ISIS comes to mind these days. I don’t believe this behavior is at all God’s intention for man, just as it isn’t His intention for animals even, to consciously torture for the sake of maximizing the evil done for instance. And if such behavior *is *in any way aligned with the nature man’s been given, then why should he abandon that behavior? God, Himself, in that view, has already created and sanctioned it; it would supposedly flow from the natural law for man so where would we find some alternative object morality to oppose it?

The Church defines the most basic aspect of man’s lack of innocence to be spiritual separation from God, ‘apart from Whom man can do nothing’ to repeat my paraphase ofJohn 15:5. Man was made for communion with God; he exists in a state of disorder or injustice or “lostness” without it. And he only begins to achieve true lasting self-mastery as he enters into it, first by recognizing God’s existence, then by becoming subjugated to Him, only authentically realized as man comes to know and love God.
 
In any case it seems that man needs to know that he’s lost in order to be found. And the cross does this in one fell swoop. Jesus dies because of our sin, convicting the world of sin, yet Jesus dies because of His love, revealing and convincing us of that love in spite of our sin. He asks that we repay in kind, to begin to love as He does, with His help, where sin is naturally excluded by that very fact. The sacrificial death of Christ was a blaring wake up call: the sin that separates man from God is deeper and more profound than what mere animal sacrifices and burnt offerings could make up for. It requires a total change, a change of heart.in man. God wants compassion and mercy. So He accomplishes both: the supreme once and for all sacrifice to end all sacrifices which in itself simultaneously constituted the absolute unconditional love and forgiveness of God for man.
 
DANG!

I just recognized that reality is spelled reality. And I used to proof read.:o:o:o

Something tells me that I need a break.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
DANG!

I just recognized that reality is spelled reality. And I used to proof read.:o:o:o

Something tells me that I need a break.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
Aw, granny-and here we thought you were maybe giving up-meaning to bring the discussion down to a more terrestrial or mundane level. Actually you spelled it right elsewhere in your posts. 🙂
 
fhansen said:
I think there are two basic different opinions here. You seem to be saying that man is innocent, and ignorant: innocent because he’s ignorant perhaps, or innocent in any case because he’s simply acting naturally, behaving in line with the faculties he’s been given by God.

But the Church teaches that man is lacking in the perfect innocence he was created in, and that less-than-perfect-innocence seems to me to be most clearly or obviously manifested in the worst atrocities man commits, acts that make savage animals look self-restrained; ISIS comes to mind these days. I don’t believe this behavior is at all God’s intention for man, just as it isn’t His intention for animals even, to consciously torture for the sake of maximizing the evil done for instance. And if such behavior *is *in any way aligned with the nature man’s been given, then why should he abandon that behavior? God, Himself, in that view, has already created and sanctioned it; it would supposedly flow from the natural law for man so where would we find some alternative object morality to oppose it?

The Church defines the most basic aspect of man’s lack of innocence to be spiritual separation from God, ‘apart from Whom man can do nothing’ to repeat my paraphase ofJohn 15:5. Man was made for communion with God; he exists in a state of disorder or injustice or “lostness” without it. And he only begins to achieve true lasting self-mastery as he enters into it, first by recognizing God’s existence, then by becoming subjugated to Him, only authentically realized as man comes to know and love God.
Click to expand...
Good Morning,

I can’t disagree with anything you said above, for the most part. What ISIS is doing doesn’t change the fact that they do not know what they are doing. Yes, God does not want people to behave like that, but people do so because they are blind and lacking in awareness. The people of ISIS do not see that those they persecute are beautiful, valued people in the eyes of God. They do not see Christ within all people.

This general understanding of people does not change the need for salvation and a call for oneness with God. This understanding is the means by which we can relate to even the people of ISIS. We can recognize our own capacity for blindness and ignorance, and understand and forgive theirs (this is not advocating their acts, of course).

In addition, we can come to see that the human continues to walk on Earth as created by God Himself. We do not create ourselves; we are created by a benevolent God who cares for us deeply. We condemn our nature for very good reasons, but upon reflection we can come to see that who we are is a gift, our nature is a gift. God looked upon us as said that we are good, and we still are. The incarnation happened in part to show us how to allign ourselves with what He wants for us.

Blessings, as always 🙂
 
Here is an amazing proposal from post 563. My poor granny brain is having a difficulty with this sentence:“What ISIS is doing doesn’t change the fact that they do not know what they are doing.”
Is there really a real human being someplace on planet earth who looks deep into ISIS souls and then determines the fact that people of ISIS do not know what they are doing. Amazing! This follows: “…but people do so because they are blind and lacking in awareness.” Wow! That must take one heck of a talented person to see blindness and lacking in awareness within people across the terrestrial globe. I secretly love learning new words like “terrestrial” from post 562.

By the way, the true Catholic Church does not “condemn our nature…”
 
grannymh said:
Here is an amazing proposal from post 563. My poor granny brain is having a difficulty with this sentence:“What ISIS is doing doesn’t change the fact that they do not know what they are doing.” Is there really a real human being someplace on planet earth who looks deep into ISIS souls and then determines the fact that people of ISIS do not know what they are doing. Amazing! This follows: “…but people do so because they are blind and lacking in awareness.” Wow! That must take one heck of a talented person to see blindness and lacking in awareness within people across the terrestrial globe. I secretly love learning new words like “terrestrial” from post

By the way, the true Catholic Church does not “condemn our nature…”
Click to expand...
You are right again, Granny.

“fact” is an overstatement in this case. It is more accurate to say that in all cases, one can observe that the people of ISIS do not know what they are doing when they persecute others. They do not see the inherent value of their enemies and those not in their “small tent”. 😉

With Love always…

One humbled Sheep
 
R is for the Reality of the true Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The question before us is based on this comment in bold from post 563:
“What ISIS is doing doesn’t change the fact that they do not know what they are doing. Yes, God does not want people to behave like that, but people do so because they are blind and lacking in awareness.”

And this comment in bold from post 565:
“It is more accurate to say that in all cases, one can observe that **the people of ISIS do not know what they are doing **when they persecute others.”

Here is the down-to-terrestrial earth serious question. Is the proposal that “human people do not know what they are doing” a true Catholic doctrine?

A small group of current Catholics will immediately answer – Yes. It is a true Catholic doctrine because human people are “blind and lacking in awareness.”

It is safe to say that approximately 73% of those saying yes do not accept the reality of Adam in the first three wonderful chapters of Genesis. Most likely, the other approximately 27% like to pass the buck just like the fictional Adam did. Genesis 3:12.

In plain language, there are now two separate groups of people claiming to be Catholics. Those who accept and most important understand the reality of Adam and those other (big tent) Catholics who view the first three chapters of Genesis as detrimental to modern life.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
R is for the Reality of the true Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The question before us is based on this comment in bold from post 563:
“What ISIS is doing doesn’t change the fact that they do not know what they are doing. Yes, God does not want people to behave like that, but people do so because they are blind and lacking in awareness.”

And this comment in bold from post 565:
“It is more accurate to say that in all cases, one can observe that **the people of ISIS do not know what they are doing **when they persecute others.”

Here is the down-to-terrestrial earth serious question. Is the proposal that “human people do not know what they are doing” a true Catholic doctrine?

A small group of current Catholics will immediately answer – Yes. It is a true Catholic doctrine because human people are “blind and lacking in awareness.”

It is safe to say that approximately 73% of those saying yes do not accept the reality of Adam in the first three wonderful chapters of Genesis. Most likely, the other approximately 27% like to pass the buck just like the fictional Adam did. Genesis 3:12.

In plain language, there are now two separate groups of people claiming to be Catholics. Those who accept and most important understand the reality of Adam and those other (big tent) Catholics who view the first three chapters of Genesis as detrimental to modern life.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
Dear Granny,

I had to smile as soon as I saw the percentages. Whenever I come up with percentages like that, my adorable wife says “there’s another ______ statistic” (the blank is our surname). In other words, she immediately accuses me of formulating something that sounds scientific but is mostly complete hooey.

I am One Sheep. Please remember that. I don’t know anyone else with the same spirituality and way of looking at things. There may be someone who finds this or that, and they may be the same as me, but the whole set, no. Quite honestly, I know only one other person who may also see that people always are blind or ignorant when they do evil. If you do find someone else, send him my way! We can compare notes. 🙂

BTW: I find the first 3 chapters uplifting, not detrimental.
grannymh said:
By the way, the true Catholic Church does not “condemn our nature…”
Click to expand...
Well, aren’t you the optimist! Yes, I would say that generally speaking most Catholics do not condemn our nature. However, it is easy to observe that humans generally condemn parts of our nature.

Here are some very commonly condemned parts of human nature which come out when people express gut reactions to the story of Adam and Eve.
  1. Natural Drive: Desire for autonomy.
    Evidence of condemnation: Condemnation of A&E wanting to make up their own mind about actions, doubting authority.
  2. Natural Capacity: Defiance
    Evidence of condemnation: Many of the sufferings that humans experience, such as pains in childbirth and having to toil for food are seen as (deserved) punishment for defiance.
  3. Natural Drive: Desire to dominate, be in control, have power.
    Evidence of condemnation: Adam and Eve’s greatest sin is condemned as “wanting to be like God” or “be greater than God”
You see, Granny, the story is told in a way such that we are to feel negatively about the couple in some way, that is part of its purpose, is it not? The reader comes away seeing the value of cooperation because according to the story lack of cooperation led to our current state. Did not you often say that you wanted to slap Adam upside the head? That is exactly the reaction to be elicited. And then if you add the layer of original sin, the desire to slap becomes even more pronounced!

Okay, have some fun with this post. It will surely “shake your tree” a little.

Blessings to you 🙂
 
grannymh said:
[/INDENT]Here is the down-to-terrestrial earth serious question. Is the proposal that “human people do not know what they are doing” a true Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
Luke 23:34a
New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
 
Luke 23:34a
New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Did Jesus really believe that people are clones of each other? 😉

Did Jesus point out the first person who did not know what she or he was doing so that the clones could fall in line?😉

Actually, the better question/answer is that the “they” (Luke 23: 34a) had the ability, that is the responsibility, of choosing or rejecting the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Sanctifying Grace is explained in the CCC Glossary, page 898.
 
Regarding question in post 567.** “**Did not you often say that you wanted to slap Adam upside the head?”

Clarification for our Gentle Readers

You bet your boots that this granny will slap Adam upside the head when she meets him. I have a comfy seat reserved in the back row of Purgatory so it may be some time before I meet the nasty (in my eyes) Adam.

Please note that while I am very old, born before Google was a twinkle in someone’s eye, I did not give advice to the author of the first three marvelous chapters of Genesis. I was not around to give advice to the Holy Spirit Who was the Moderator for Debates in the early major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils. I am an ordinary granny, driven by curiosity about our marvelous Catholic Faith.

I keep wondering why people want to change Catholicism from inside the Church.

I wonder why people ignore the warning in paragraphs 11 & 12 in 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.
Each human person, including the real [Genesis] Eve and Adam,
is worthy of profound respect.
 
While we can laugh at the idea of being old enough to give advice to the Holy Spirit (post 570), we are faced with the fact that we need to carefully choose our mentor who will guide us to the truth.

Do we look for the “laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him”? (last sentence, paragraph 12, post 570) That question is before us even when we ignore it.

Choosing a mentor who considers a peaceful state of mind (“eirenism” in paragraphs 11 & 12, post 570) as primary will always sound inviting. However, when our mentor changes or omits essential truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, we can no longer be his or her student.

Choosing a mentor who considers a peaceful state of mind (“eirenism” in paragraphs 11 & 12, post 570) as primary will always sound inviting. However, when our mentor changes or omits essential truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, we can no longer be his or her student.

In our secular world, it is hard to remain a true Catholic. Thus, we find an emerging splinter group within the Church itself. Promoters of the Big Tent where eirenism rules, dare to claim the right to different opinions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the early major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.
 
grannymh said:
While we can laugh at the idea of being old enough to give advice to the Holy Spirit (post 570), we are faced with the fact that we need to carefully choose our mentor who will guide us to the truth.

Do we look for the “laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him”? (last sentence, paragraph 12, post 570) That question is before us even when we ignore it.

Choosing a mentor who considers a peaceful state of mind (“eirenism” in paragraphs 11 & 12, post 570) as primary will always sound inviting. However, when our mentor changes or omits essential truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, we can no longer be his or her student.

Choosing a mentor who considers a peaceful state of mind (“eirenism” in paragraphs 11 & 12, post 570) as primary will always sound inviting. However, when our mentor changes or omits essential truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, we can no longer be his or her student.

In our secular world, it is hard to remain a true Catholic. Thus, we find an emerging splinter group within the Church itself. Promoters of the Big Tent where eirenism rules, dare to claim the right to different opinions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the early major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.
Click to expand...
Dear Readers,

Lovely Granny, as I have stated before, is not accusing anyone of “eirenism”.

It took me awhile to find out what “eirenism” is. The closest defined word in Wikipedia is “Irenicism” which seems to be the attempt to unify factions of Christianity in part by examining and clarifying doctrine.

The most important modern quote I found on irenicism is this:
Code: 
 "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, [false] irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"
Pope Benedict

While irenicism is seen as a good thing, false irenicism involves compromising the Truth. Granny is not criticizing irenicism in itself, she does disagree with what I am seeing as Truth. As a reminder, what I am saying is a bottom-line Truth is that God is infinitely loving and merciful, and anything that appears to contradict this bottom-line Truth in the eyes of the faithful can be, at the least, regarded as “mystery”.

I really like the line above from Pope Benedict quoting John’s gospel, “And there shall be one fold and one shepherd”.

I am definitely not interested in compromising Truth for the sake of unity. My discussions with Granny do not involve irenicism at all, they involve a discovery of Truth, a search for Truth found in scripture and other sources. Exciting, is it not?

🙂
 
OneSheep said:
Dear Readers,

Lovely Granny, as I have stated before, is not accusing anyone of “eirenism”.

It took me awhile to find out what “eirenism” is. The closest defined word in Wikipedia is “Irenicism” which seems to be the attempt to unify factions of Christianity in part by examining and clarifying doctrine.

The most important modern quote I found on irenicism is this:
Code: 
 "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, [false] irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"
Pope Benedict

While irenicism is seen as a good thing, false irenicism involves compromising the Truth. Granny is not criticizing irenicism in itself, she does disagree with what I am seeing as Truth. As a reminder, what I am saying is a bottom-line Truth is that God is infinitely loving and merciful, and anything that appears to contradict this bottom-line Truth in the eyes of the faithful can be, at the least, regarded as “mystery”.

I really like the line above from Pope Benedict quoting John’s gospel, “And there shall be one fold and one shepherd”.

I am definitely not interested in compromising Truth for the sake of unity. My discussions with Granny do not involve irenicism at all, they involve a discovery of Truth, a search for Truth found in scripture and other sources. Exciting, is it not?

🙂
Click to expand...
I think the real point, OS, is that while God needs to be understood as boundlessly forgiving, merciful, kind, and loving (and not all seem to accept and understand this very truth well), He still allows us to be the wildcard, to reject His forgiveness, mercy, kindness, and love. That’s what free will gives us: the ability to move towards or away from justice. To say that God saves without reference to our sin, to our choices, is to completely gut the concepts of free will and goodness of their meanings. If salvation is universal in spite of sin why did Jesus suffer and die? Why do *any *of us suffer and die? Why not just stock heaven with a bunch of eternally happy people and avoid all the drama?

If we were to summarize “salvation history” from Eden down through Jesus, it’s always been about man’s *will -*and how it responds to and cooperates with God’s grace-or not.
 
The word “erienism” which is found in paragraphs 11 & 12 in post 570 has quotation marks with a purpose. The quote marks indicate the need for a dictionary of obscure words.

**Word **
eirenism

Definition
peaceful state of mind
phrontistery.info/e.html

Erienism is a goal in paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Note: It is important that a mentor understand that what Pope Pius XII saw in the 1940’s is actually happening today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top