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

[OneSheep]

I don’t think you understand the way in which the word “obligation” is understood here. Obligation is an integral part of “the deeper way”. Obligation is not at odds with the fullness of love.
newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm

Yes, obligation is not at odds with the fullness of love, especially in the context of the link. However, “obligation” when equated with the “stick” referred to by fhansen (his usage below) does create the anxiety I described, especially in reference to a God who loves and forgives upon condition. The link you provided does not tie “obligation” to a means by which we earn God’s love and forgiveness, it is referring to the necessity of relationship in order to live a life of faith (paraphrasing).

IMO there must be both a carrot and a stick in God’s toolkit. And this is so because 1) we’re morally accountable beings with free will and, 2) He wants us to freely choose the right thing, without forcing it. To be obligated to do the “right thing” is not bad; it’s good, in fact. which is why God could rightfully command it in Genesis. But knowing that man may need to *learn *to do it is why God didn’t abandon man but instead patiently leads him through history on to a place where he’s more capable of receiving the light -and responding to it.

You have to admit that there is a small contradiction in that paragraph, friend. If there is a stick, then there is some forcing involved. No need to dwell on that, though, because in the gist of what you are saying I find merit. To use a stick in order to steer us to a good thing is good. Because of the stick, though, there is a trade-off, the threat(s) make sense in terms of our human nature, but they can compromise somewhat the image of our Father’s infinite and unconditional love. In order to love completely one is obliged (in goout’s use) to love every single person, and forgive those for who we find such love hampered by resentment.

And then, once we do so, we can experience the holiness, what it means to love without any inhibition whatsoever. We can know that God’s love and forgiveness has no hesitation.

Yes, we are *obliged * (goout) to be in relationship in order to experience this love. But the stick, when presenting the image of a God who forgives conditionally, takes us from the starting point of an anthropomorphic image. Through relationship and grace, through living the Gospel, we can come to see that the stick I described is an illusion, a purposeful illusion, but an illusion.

Part of the lesson along the way is that even if man knows what righteousness consists of (because it’s been revealed via the law/ten commandments for example), he won’t be automatically capable of obedience, unless and until he comes to love. And love, by its nature cannot be forced. But what the obligation or command succeeds in doing is informing us-hopefully *convicting *us-that something is still missing, that there’s a way to go before we arrive at our goal, that there is a higher and better goal to begin with. At any point we generally tend to prefer thinking that we’ve already arrived but until that’s actually a reality we won’t experience the peace and satisfaction and happiness that we all desire anyway-and which is only available through communion with God even if not fully attained until the next life.

We do desperately need to know the depth of God’s love-to the extent that we can-and that is perhaps the central message of the New Testament, of the Incarnation. To the extent that we really know that, we’re changed already. But even then we’ll struggle against our own inclinations to be distracted from Him. There’s a reason why the first commandment is what it is-and why we need to hear it until it becomes our nature to observe it-until we come to understand why it’s so critical, and why it’s observation leads to life, as we simultaneously begin to practice it spontaneously as we cooperate with grace.

A carrot and a stick; God’s wise and patient with both.

Yes, I agree, but once a person can love with no limit, any stick that indicates a conditionally loving/forgiving God is difficult to regard as part of a deeper truth.

In other words, if it makes sense to a person that God would not forgive a disobedient person, for example, God invites us to forgive disobedient people in a deeply understanding way. Once we do this, we can see that God forgives a disobedient person. In the mean time, until one forgives disobedient people, the image of a God not forgiving disobedient people motivates obedience. Are you following me?

 

[grannymh]

The question – Jesus’ divinity depends on Adam? …

… can be politely and charitably considered as one of those trick things which assumes that some people do not know the facts found in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The real question is – Why was a Divine Person needed to repair the shattered original friendship relationship between Adam and God?

 

[cfauster]

… To use a stick in order to steer us to a good thing is good. Because of the stick, though, there is a trade-off, the threat(s) make sense in terms of our human nature, but they can compromise somewhat the image of our Father’s infinite and unconditional love. In order to love completely one is obliged (in goout’s use) to love every single person, and forgive those for who we find such love hampered by resentment.

And then, once we do so, we can experience the holiness, what it means to love without any inhibition whatsoever. We can know that God’s love and forgiveness has no hesitation.

Yes, we are *obliged * (goout) to be in relationship in order to experience this love. But the stick, when presenting the image of a God who forgives conditionally, takes us from the starting point of an anthropomorphic image. Through relationship and grace, through living the Gospel, we can come to see that the stick I described is an illusion, a purposeful illusion, but an illusion.

…

I wonder if this might be relevant when thinking about the roles of law and gospel (stick and carrot).

The classic passage that explicates this second use of the Law is Romans 7. Verse 7 says, “I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” So then, the Law serves the Gospel by preparing us for it. It enables us to recognize our sin and our need for forgiveness and renewal. Once we accept the bad news about our condition, we are prepared to receive the Good News of salvation. As a result, we trust in Christ and enter the new creation … the Gospel introduces us into an entirely new world, a new creation, a different reality than that which was in place under the Law. This was something God had promised his people for many generations.

*“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” (Deut 30:6)

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:31-34)

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you anew heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek 36:25-27)*

The Gospel has brought about the New Covenant, wherein it is no longer “the Law” that guides us but the “Law written on our hearts” — i.e. the Gospel of the New Covenant. We are now participants in the Kingdom of God, which has been introduced into the life of this world. The new creation is infiltrating this creation. The age to come is breaking in upon this present age. The good works that God has prepared for us come to us from this new realm, and we are enabled to walk in a life that is animated and motivated by God’s Spirit.

This means that whatever “works” we do as Christians are, by nature, “pure gift” as well. They are works of the Kingdom, works that are not motivated or directed by encoded laws and our perfect obedience to those laws, but by the grace of God in Jesus Christ as experienced in the power of the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit in the lives of those who walk with Christ is love; that is joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These qualities do not oppose the law, but fulfill the intent of God’s laws and even surpass its instructions.

So then, there is now a “new obedience” that characterizes the Christian life, one that is based on the Gospel, and not the Law.

There is more at Third Use of the Law? No, Something Better

 

[grannymh]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

Thank you for the link.

My apology. I was looking for the side by side verses demonstration. Unfortunately, in the past, the so-called different approaches to the creation of humankind have been presented as proof that the first three chapters of Genesis contains errors.

Praise God for the wisdom of St. John Paul II

 

[simpleas]

Yes, that popular mentor, aka a Progressive Christian in a Wikipedia list, is helping people understand a lot about **his **church. And the improvements …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christians

:frighten:

I actually don’t know what to say anymore…

 

[cfauster]

I actually don’t know what to say anymore…

It’s hard to find reviews of Richard Rohr’s theology that express a mixture of praise and criticism. For what it’s worth, my take is that in some cases he’s identified some problems worth discussing, but his solutions seem to lack grounding.

Here are a few reviews I found helpful:

spiritualdirection.com/2014/09/05/can-trust-fr-richard-rohr

spiritualdirection.com/2014/11/05/can-trust-fr-richard-rohr-part-ii-book-review-everything-belongs-gift-contempaltive-prayer

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6819

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=888929&referrerid=377071

 

[goout]

I’m not sure how we got into a critique of Richard Rohr.

 

[cfauster]

I’m not sure how we got into a critique of Richard Rohr.

In this thread, I think it started when some posters referred to Rohr’s reference to original sin as a “fly in the ointment.”

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure how we got into a critique of Richard Rohr.

One of his internet meditations relates directly to the thread’s topic “Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?” Pertinent link: myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

As a way or organizing important points about the reality of Adam and Original Sin, we have been using the alphabet. We are now on the letters of S & T
From post 593, page 40

The Letters S & T are for the question –

Why is Sacred Scripture, the first three chapters of Genesis,
an important Testament?

Father Richard Rohr popped up because there are some people on CAF who consider him as a good mentor regarding Sacred Scripture. Granted that Father has helped many people. However, his public disregard of some basic Catholic teachings flowing from Sacred Scripture, impacts this thread. Father is an extremely clever communicator and mentor. Someone gave me a link to one of his talks. It took about seven minutes to recognize his basic opposition to Catholicism. I turned off the link.

Pardon me. I need to go back and read the posts which I skipped.

 

[grannymh]

In other words, if it makes sense to a person that God would not forgive a disobedient person, for example, God invites us to forgive disobedient people in a deeply understanding way. Once we do this, we can see that God forgives a disobedient person. In the mean time, until one forgives disobedient people, the image of a God not forgiving disobedient people motivates obedience. Are you following me?

The above paragraph has appeared in many different ways in different posts in different threads. Still, this time someone is asking: “Are you following me?”

Of course, I follow …

However, the better question is: Do all those words relate to Catholicism? Of course, they kind of but not fully relate.

The first point is that true Catholicism does not leave a “disobedient person” hanging in midair. Each human person, obedient or not, is worthy of profound respect. We respect every person because they are in the image of God and are called to share in His divine life aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

Each person is free to determine the State of one’s own soul. Therefore, when we speak about God forgiving a disobedient person, out of charity, we cannot automatically leave out the person’s free choice to accept or reject God’s forgiveness. We cannot leave out the special spiritual soul which includes the capability to accept or reject God’s forgiveness.

God is not required to forgive. He forgives out of love. On the other hand, we cannot leave the disobedient person hanging between acceptance and rejection of God’s love. Because he is not God, the human, because of his freedom, has to make a choice. Not making a choice is a choice usually considered as a rejection.

The second point is that there is more to consider when one offers the simple sample of a disobedient person.

 

[grannymh]

It’s hard to find reviews of Richard Rohr’s theology that express a mixture of praise and criticism. For what it’s worth, my take is that in some cases he’s identified some problems worth discussing, but his solutions seem to lack grounding.

Here are a few reviews I found helpful:

spiritualdirection.com/2014/09/05/can-trust-fr-richard-rohr

spiritualdirection.com/2014/11/05/can-trust-fr-richard-rohr-part-ii-book-review-everything-belongs-gift-contempaltive-prayer

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6819

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=888929&referrerid=377071

Thank you for these marvelous sources.

Your take – that in some cases he’s identified some problems worth discussing, but his solutions seem to lack grounding. – is the most reasonable observation that I have seen. His solution, which is not grounded in true Catholicism, is what Pope Pius XII saw in the 1940’s.

 

[OneSheep]

For general information.

Being named a “Progressive Christian” is not a Catholic honor or a Catholic award. It is a designation that the person, for example Mathew Fox, Richard Rohr, John Dominic Crossan, is, in essence, opposed to some basic Catholic doctrines. Not only are these men opposed to Catholicism, they have formed their own following, that is, a group of people who have decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental.

Obviously, it is not necessary that beginning students of these mentors hate the Catholic Church. These wolves in sheep’s clothing simply want their students to quietly slip away from Catholicism bit by bit according to what interests them. Eventually, these students decide that the Catholic Church is detrimental for themselves. Some will remain half-Catholic, a rather silly thought. Do some of these people really think it is possible to slice the Holy Eucharist into their own ideas of a happy communion of people? Yes.

All three of those people are opposed to Catholicism, Granny? And how do you know that you are speaking the Truth? They have a following that has decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental? And you know this as truth?, how so, dear?

Are you bearing witness? And if so, what is the basis of your witness? Do tell.

Fr. Rohr, for one, I do not always agree with,but I don’t see the basis for your comment.

“Look what happens when I point my finger like this” an elderly Italian Sister once motioned, pointing her hand like a pistol, “when I point my finger like this at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at me!”. And she smiles broadly.

You would learn a lot from that Sister, granny, I sure have.

 

[OneSheep]

In other words, if it makes sense to a person that God would not forgive a disobedient person, for example, God invites us to forgive disobedient people in a deeply understanding way. Once we do this, we can see that God forgives a disobedient person. In the mean time, until one forgives disobedient people, the image of a God not forgiving disobedient people motivates obedience. Are you following me?

The above paragraph has appeared in many different ways in different posts in different threads. Still, this time someone is asking: “Are you following me?”

Of course, I follow …

However, the better question is: Do all those words relate to Catholicism? Of course, they kind of but not fully relate.

The first point is that true Catholicism does not leave a “disobedient person” hanging in midair. Each human person, obedient or not, is worthy of profound respect. We respect every person because they are in the image of God and are called to share in His divine life aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

Each person is free to determine the State of one’s own soul. Therefore, when we speak about God forgiving a disobedient person, out of charity, we cannot automatically leave out the person’s free choice to accept or reject God’s forgiveness. We cannot leave out the special spiritual soul which includes the capability to accept or reject God’s forgiveness.

God is not required to forgive. He forgives out of love. On the other hand, we cannot leave the disobedient person hanging between acceptance and rejection of God’s love. Because he is not God, the human, because of his freedom, has to make a choice. Not making a choice is a choice usually considered as a rejection.

The second point is that there is more to consider when one offers the simple sample of a disobedient person.

Hi Granny,

Actually, I see no contradiction between what I said and what you said above. The only thing I would add is that whenever people do make a rejection, it is my observation that they do not know what they are doing. You may see it differently, but neither observation runs contrary to doctrine.

BTW: I asked the “are you following me?” because my words came out a little tangled, but seemed to make sense.

Keep up the good work, dear!

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

All three of those people are opposed to Catholicism, Granny? And how do you know that you are speaking the Truth? They have a following that has decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental? And you know this as truth?, how so, dear?

Are you bearing witness? And if so, what is the basis of your witness? Do tell.

Fr. Rohr, for one, I do not always agree with,but I don’t see the basis for your comment.

“Look what happens when I point my finger like this” an elderly Italian Sister once motioned, pointing her hand like a pistol, “when I point my finger like this at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at me!”. And she smiles broadly.

You would learn a lot from that Sister, granny, I sure have.

Good grief. I am a retired investigative journalist. I still protect my sources.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

Actually, I see no contradiction between what I said and what you said above. The only thing I would add is that whenever people do make a rejection, it is my observation that they do not know what they are doing. You may see it differently, but neither observation runs contrary to doctrine.

It is truly amazing that you observe the rational spiritual soul not knowing what the human person is doing. That sounds like Cartesian extreme dualism.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

“Look what happens when I point my finger like this” an elderly Italian Sister once motioned, pointing her hand like a pistol, “when I point my finger like this at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at me!”. And she smiles broadly.

You would learn a lot from that Sister, granny, I sure have.

P.S.
You, too, can be a modern journalist looking for information about Matthew Fox, Richard Rohr, and John Dominic Crossan. Point your finger at Google.
You might have to use the word priest with Matthew Fox.

 

[OneSheep]

Good grief. I am a retired investigative journalist. I still protect my sources.

So, we can say that a priest is against Catholicism with no support whatsoever for the statement?

This sounds like a step below “I read it on Facebook”.

You have no sources, Granny, what you have is opinion. You are not speaking Truth. Nowadays opinion is so mixed in with real news: “News and Comment”.

“I am a retired investigative journalist, and I can say whatever I want, and it is true”?

Out with it, dear, is it the Truth?

It is truly amazing that you observe the rational spiritual soul not knowing what the human person is doing. That sounds like Cartesian extreme dualism.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I have absolutely no idea what your comment had to do with my observation. Do I see a bit of straw?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening cfauster,

I wonder if this might be relevant when thinking about the roles of law and gospel (stick and carrot).

The classic passage that explicates this second use of the Law is Romans 7. Verse 7 says, “I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” So then, the Law serves the Gospel by preparing us for it. It enables us to recognize our sin and our need for forgiveness and renewal.

While this may be true for Paul, evidence suggests that people are truly born with a conscience that can be found through experience- trial and error. Many, if not most mores are found in all cultures. On some of the finer points, where it sometimes takes a generation to really understand the purpose of a particular law, we do rely on the wisdom of the ages (and the aged ).

Once we accept the bad news about our condition, we are prepared to receive the Good News of salvation. As a result, we trust in Christ and enter the new creation … the Gospel introduces us into an entirely new world, a new creation, a different reality than that which was in place under the Law. This was something God had promised his people for many generations.

Wonderful clarity! You see, I don’t think that it is really important what each individual finds as “bad news”. And when I think about it, this is key. Is it really important what specific thing the person thinks is the “bad news”? We can have a person suffering in the third world with no knowledge whatsoever of Genesis, and when exposed to the Hope found in Christ, he receives the Good News! He has bad news all around him, his daily life, the struggle for resources, crime, oppression, etc. Sure, it is very natural for a person to look at his own condition and consider it “bad news”; it is natural for a person to develop a resentment toward some aspect of himself. So yes, many people can also relate to a “bad news” about the human condition itself, just being a person with drives and capacities we sometimes have to really challenge ourselves to control. Is belief in bad news as original sin essential, though, in order to receive/believe in Christ? What thinks thee?

*“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” (Deut 30:6)

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:31-34)

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you anew heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek 36:25-27)*

Beautiful, thank you. To me, that passage describes an individual’s natural development of love toward all people, and love itself being the dominant guide to behavior rather than fear of breaking a law. I am not putting down the latter in any way, though, and I don’t think the Gospel does either. It is a matter of development.

The Gospel has brought about the New Covenant, wherein it is no longer “the Law” that guides us but the “Law written on our hearts” — i.e. the Gospel of the New Covenant. We are now participants in the Kingdom of God, which has been introduced into the life of this world. The new creation is infiltrating this creation. The age to come is breaking in upon this present age. The good works that God has prepared for us come to us from this new realm, and we are enabled to walk in a life that is animated and motivated by God’s Spirit.

This means that whatever “works” we do as Christians are, by nature, “pure gift” as well. They are works of the Kingdom…

So then, there is now a “new obedience” that characterizes the Christian life, one that is based on the Gospel, and not the Law.

There is more at Third Use of the Law? No, Something Better

Yes, that is a much better way of expressing what I was trying to say. A person whose life is based on the Gospel, with love as his guide, no longer needs the law, nor does he remain cowering in fear of the “stick” behind it. Christ has forgiven us and set us free, and that includes freedom of fear of the law itself. This is not saying, of course, that a person who has such freedom scoffs at the law or pays it any disrespect whatsoever, quite the opposite. Everyone (hopefully) can see the purpose of the law and see that it is truly based in love, and intends to encourage charity and mercy.

Did I contradict, or did I restate? I’m going for the latter.

 

[fhansen]

You have to admit that there is a small contradiction in that paragraph, friend. If there is a stick, then there is some forcing involved. No need to dwell on that, though, because in the gist of what you are saying I find merit. To use a stick in order to steer us to a good thing is good. Because of the stick, though, there is a trade-off, the threat(s) make sense in terms of our human nature, but they can compromise somewhat the image of our Father’s infinite and unconditional love. In order to love completely one is obliged (in goout’s use) to love every single person, and forgive those for who we find such love hampered by resentment.

That sounds like Genesis 2:15-17.

The carrot is continuing to live in eternal joy when there is obedience to the Divine Creator. And the stick is the eventual bodily death which Adam will experience because of his chosen disobedience. And yes, because God loves, He is wise and patient with living humans who are worthy of profound respect.

Yes, I think there are many ways of saying it. The carrot is the Promised Land. It’s peace, joy, harmony happiness, heaven, complete and total acceptance, love-all things seemingly unattainable in any perfectly satisfying way here on earth-even though we may well try to satisfy them with earthly things. The stick is unhappiness, sin, negativity, anger, selfishness, dissatisfaction, harm to and from neighbor, war, disharmony, strife, pain, suffering, death, hell.

We don’t like guilt and yet it’s a part of life-a form of mental pain that drives us to keep looking for the right medicine to *relieve *the pain. We don’t like obligation either; we prefer freedom from authority-isn’t that how Adam acted?-and yet fulfillment of our obligation to God becomes an easy yoke, a light burden as we come to recognize his wisdom and goodness in it all, and stop kicking at the goads. Eventually no goads should be needed as we come into alignment with His will, as we begin to love as He does to put it another way.

So the idea of the stick isn’t about a full-on controlling force, as if God would either remove our wills completely and simply place us in heaven, or override our wills and shove us into heaven like it or not. Rather, the stick is something used judiciously, to help, guide, and inform us so that, with the help of grace, we’re both drawn and also goaded a bit towards Him. In the story of the Prodigal Son the pigsty, an environment the son ended up in as a result of his own choices, served as a stick. With the stick God is appealing to our wills just as He is with His mercy and forgiveness; they’re both aspects of His grace IOW. The stick keeps us from being too self-assured; it prompts us to act.

God’s love and mercy are unconditional, but, with free will, and due to the value He sets on it, He allows us to determine any conditions; we can refuse His love. Again, our own level of justice is directly related to our willingness to embrace and participate in perfecting it. That’s simply God’s way, of drawing and molding us into perfected beings. The point is that God wants us to be mature creatures who choose rightly precisely because we’re not imbeciles or beasts who must have all decisions essentially made for them. At the same time, God, alone, would be free from the need for such correction or chastisement, etc. We’re great and awesome in our own way and yet imperfect, in need of correcting and perfecting, and always in need of recognizing our place, our creaturely status vis a vis our Creator.

 

[grannymh]

The Letters S & T are for the question –

Why is Sacred Scripture, the first three chapters of Genesis,
an important Testament?

As a testament, which the true Catholic Church follows, the first three chapters of Genesis answers humans’ basic questions – Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?

Each of us is more than a twinkle in our daddy’s eye.

Often, we can feel lost in a crowd of billions. At this point, it is valuable to look for a mentor who understands and more importantly affirms the Catholic teachings which flow from those first three intellectual chapters of Genesis. A popular mentor could give messages of truth at the same time denying the extreme importance of Genesis 3: 11-12. For example. myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

Genesis 3: 11-12

11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

Those straight forward verses affirm that Original Sin is real.


There is the following problem of a loving God Who is like a loving human parent so therefore, this God would only give out candy. And if, for some silly reason, an offspring does something bad, the real intentions are automatically changed so that there is no responsibility. I do not recommend using that “thinking” when a traffic cop stops you for speeding through a red light. On the other hand, a “fly” solves everyone’s problems with those first three truthful chapters.

To be continued.