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.
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
grannymh said:
Good grief. I am a retired investigative journalist. I still protect my sources. 😉
Click to expand...
Dear Granny,

Do retired investigative journalists on the CAF get to say that certain Catholic priests are against Catholicism, and say that their “following” is “a group of people who have decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental” without sources?

Is it the Truth, Granny? Or opinion? Does it sound charitable, Granny?

Give it a prayer, Okay?
 
OneSheep said:
Dear Granny,

Do retired investigative journalists on the CAF get to say that certain Catholic priests are against Catholicism, and say that their “following” is “a group of people who have decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental” without sources?

Is it the Truth, Granny? Or opinion? Does it sound charitable, Granny?

Give it a prayer, Okay?
Click to expand...
First. As a journalist, I follow the reality of Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

One of the “what” items in the official Catholic Church is the acceptance of reality in the first three amazing chapters in the book of Genesis. When a Catholic priest writes that a fly is the “what” in Genesis 3: 11-12 …

“Why” does the “Who” (a priest) eliminate the “what” “where” Genesis 3: 11-12 is only some kind of a myth? :rotfl:I laugh now; but I had a tough boss who wanted answers.

There are some interesting public sources which appeared in post 640 in this thread. If you have trouble with the doctrines, I will do my best to help out. I am not a fan of church-speak.

Also you could find the website for some of the Progressive Christians. When you google Mathew Fox, you usually have to add the word Priest. And you might have to use “Jesus Seminar” or something similar for John Dominic Crossan. I lost track of him.

I do realize that ordinary folk are not familiar with “Emerging Christianity” and what is really real about the “Big Tent.” Therefore, when I use the word “following” that often includes the people who use the internet to learn about the new kind of a Catholic Church. It is possible to find a list of “progressive” churches.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christian_denominations
 
grannymh said:
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
Click to expand...
Good Morning Dear,

Here is a quote from the source:

Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.

Fr. Rohr is talking about a “starting point”, he is not negating the doctrine of OS, he is saying that we are too focused on the sin instead of the blessings. He is emphasizing that we start with original blessing, and there is nothing un-Catholic about that.

Starting with original blessing is starting with God seeing our goodness, and it means that we, too, can see the goodness of God in all our fellow humanity, which your wonderful closing comments on your post so often reflect. Do you see that your words have more in common?

Blessings to you! 🙂
 
grannymh said:
First. As a journalist, I follow the reality of Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

One of the “what” items in the official Catholic Church is the acceptance of reality in the first three amazing chapters in the book of Genesis. When a Catholic priest writes that a fly is the “what” in Genesis 3: 11-12 …

“Why” does the “Who” (a priest) eliminate the “what” “where” Genesis 3: 11-12 is only some kind of a myth? :rotfl:I laugh now; but I had a tough boss who wanted answers.

There are some interesting public sources which appeared in post 640 in this thread. If you have trouble with the doctrines, I will do my best to help out. I am not a fan of church-speak.

Also you could find the website for some of the Progressive Christians. When you google Mathew Fox, you usually have to add the word Priest. And you might have to use “Jesus Seminar” or something similar for John Dominic Crossan. I lost track of him.
Click to expand...
Dear, well-intentioned Granny,

Could you please answer my question? Is it the truth, or is it not, that Fr. Rohr is against Catholicism and his followers find the Catholic Church detrimental?

Please, we are talking about opinion, right?

Sorry to be such a pest, but those were some pretty outlandish statements. :ehh:

Oh, and last time I checked, Crossan is still quite Catholic.
 
OneSheep said:
Good Morning Dear,

Here is a quote from the source:

Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.

Fr. Rohr is talking about a “starting point”, he is not negating the doctrine of OS, he is saying that we are too focused on the sin instead of the blessings. He is emphasizing that we start with original blessing, and there is nothing un-Catholic about that.

Starting with original blessing is starting with God seeing our goodness, and it means that we, too, can see the goodness of God in all our fellow humanity, which your wonderful closing comments on your post so often reflect. Do you see that your words have more in common?

Blessings to you! 🙂
Click to expand...
Would it be possible for you to exactly explain a foundation of original goodness?
 
grannymh said:
Would it be possible for you to exactly explain a foundation of original goodness?
Click to expand...
Sure, Granny, I’d love to!

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

One can see the several times in Genesis 1 that God is saying that what He created is good. One can also follow the call to see Christ in everyone, including “the least of my people”, which includes all those we consider “least”, be they people in prison or those who happen to like Fr. Rohr. 😉

From this starting point, evangelism follows this concept: that Christ did not come to condemn the world. We Christians can change the face of Christianity itself (seen as a bunch of people who condemn) to a face that loves and embraces all people as having an inherent goodness. Our focus, instead of condemning politicians, for example, might be one of forgiving politicians, seeing their good intent.

To me, for example, it means seeing the good intent of all people, that we do have an inherent, pervasive beauty and wonder. That people are amazing, and each of us has value. Do you see? This is all stuff you agree with, right?

Does that help?
 
OneSheep said:
Good Morning Dear,

Here is a quote from the source:

Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.
Click to expand...
We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f).

Would it be possible for you to tell us ordinary folk what Father Richard Rohr says about current Jesus Christ?

This information about Jesus Christ belongs with the alphabetical theme of this thread.
The “what” of Genesis 3: 11-12 is Original Sin. It is the reason for Jesus Christ. I put the key sentence of CCC 389 in bold.
CCC 389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

In the meantime, will the readers please go back to post 653, which is lost in this jungle. I will continue that post later in a couple of days.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14344479&postcount=653

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 human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f).

Would it be possible for you to tell us ordinary folk what Father Richard Rohr says about current Jesus Christ?

This information about Jesus Christ belongs with the alphabetical theme of this thread.
The “what” of Genesis 3: 11-12 is Original Sin. It is the reason for Jesus Christ. I put the key sentence of CCC 389 in bold.
CCC 389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

In the meantime, will the readers please go back to post 653, which is lost in this jungle. I will continue that post later in a couple of days.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14344479&postcount=653

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 human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
Yes, a focus on CCC 389 as a starting point begins our look at humanity with an accusation. However, Genesis does not begin our look at humanity with an accusation.

So, this reflects the way that we Christians approach other people. Do we begin our approach to people in an accusatory way, or do we begin our approach to people with profound respect, love, warmth, and embrace?

Do we begin with understanding, or do we begin with suspicion?

Do we begin with patience, or do we begin with “you should have known better”?

Do we begin with forgiveness, or do we begin with condemnation?
 
OneSheep said:
Yes, a focus on CCC 389 as a starting point begins our look at humanity with an accusation. However, Genesis does not begin our look at humanity with an accusation.

So, this reflects the way that we Christians approach other people. Do we begin our approach to people in an accusatory way, or do we begin our approach to people with profound respect, love, warmth, and embrace?

Do we begin with understanding, or do we begin with suspicion?

Do we begin with patience, or do we begin with “you should have known better”?

Do we begin with forgiveness, or do we begin with condemnation?
Click to expand...
We can’t seek a healer until we know we’re ill-we don’t need God’s help if we’re already righteous-Mark 2:17 Often the wrong, the injustice, in this world and our own behavior calls out for an explanation-and the doctrine of OS provides just that.
 
OneSheep said:
Yes, a focus on CCC 389 as a starting point begins our look at humanity with an accusation. However, Genesis does not begin our look at humanity with an accusation.

So, this reflects the way that we Christians approach other people. Do we begin our approach to people in an accusatory way, or do we begin our approach to people with profound respect, love, warmth, and embrace?

Do we begin with understanding, or do we begin with suspicion?

Do we begin with patience, or do we begin with “you should have known better”?

Do we begin with forgiveness, or do we begin with condemnation?
Click to expand...
This is a good place to remind readers that the alphabetical approach is back on track in post 653. Here we begin with patience and understanding as we explore the truth of Original Sin. Please note that I will be off CAF for a few days.
Each human person, including Eve and Adam, is worthy of profound respect.
 
Just a quick note of encouragement: great dialogue happening here now, in my opinion.

One reason is that I see, collectively, balance between law and gospel (stick and carrot).

IMO, Rohr has a point when he says that sometimes sin has been overemphasized and original blessing slighted.

On the other hand, critics of Rohr’s approach rightly (IMO) warn against the opposite problem/imbalance, that of (almost, if not completely) ignoring sin and overemphasizing blessing and inherent goodness.

Key, I think, is that we humans tend to lose love for people sometimes when we see sin. We lose love for others, and we lose love for ourselves.

I’m thankful that God starts and maintains a perspective of love, even when God is dealing with sin, even when God needs to condemn/punish.

Jesus, and the Bible in general, repeatedly point that out. Perhaps the closest we come to the unconditional kind of love God has is in our love as parents for our children. Jesus used that as an example, but added (not quoting here): “So if you, who are evil, love enough to give good gifts to your children, how much more does God do so !”

Keep up the good work, OneSheep and grannymh and fhansen and others, and of course one advantage of these forums is that one can take a break and return when able.
 
goout said:
While the Church does not reject this idea of transmission, it is not the only one, and it seems that it might not be the most plausible.
It is very likely that Genesis was formed from a long long LONG Inspired oral tradition, so that when we say “author”, we are probably not talking about one individual who was present to record the events of Genesis, but rather the Inspired story of a people that makes it’s way into writing.

For some reason, this idea of scripture breathing out of a community tradition causes a lot of anxiety among modern people. Perhaps we are conditioned by science and journalism.
Scripture was never intended to be science or mere journalism.
Click to expand...
I tried sending you the information I found, but something is wrong with the PM.

Here is an explanation of four sources for the early books of the Bible-- the JEDP theory which I was trying to remember.

catholic.com/quickquestio…sprove-genesis

Depending on which Bible you are using, there may be some JEDP explanation right before the first chapter of Genesis. You may want to use Google.

Blessings,
granny
 
grannymh said:
This is a good place to remind readers that the alphabetical approach is back on track in post 653. Here we begin with patience and understanding as we explore the truth of Original Sin. Please note that I will be off CAF for a few days.
Each human person, including Eve and Adam, is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
I wish you a safe journey and a relaxing vacation sweetie. I ran across this on another thread, it is very applicable to the topic here, actually, especially in the way we read scripture, the focal point.

wordonfire.org/resources/video/violence-in-the-bible/287/

I love Bishop Barron! 🙂
 
OneSheep said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...
Apparently, there is a refusal to read the links in post 640.

spiritualdirection.com/20…r-richard-rohr

spiritualdirection.com/20…paltive-prayer

catholicculture.org/cultu…ew.cfm?id=6819

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…errerid=377071
 
OneSheep said:
I wish you a safe journey and a relaxing vacation sweetie. I ran across this on another thread, it is very applicable to the topic here, actually, especially in the way we read scripture, the focal point.

wordonfire.org/resources/video/violence-in-the-bible/287/

I love Bishop Barron! 🙂
Click to expand...
That was some what helpful. I have come to understand that the old and new testaments should be read as spiritual stories rather than actual events in history. Apparently there is no evidence of mass killings described in the old testament.

Because I’m a bit slow on understanding I still imagine the scriptures as actual events only recently fully realised the birth of Christ is only a story, not that it didn’t happen, just that it didn’t happen completely as described. Christ’s death on the cross is recorded as a real event.
 
grannymh said:
And I sincerely hope you will have the courage to read these links from post 640.

spiritualdirection.com/20…r-richard-rohr

spiritualdirection.com/20…paltive-prayer

catholicculture.org/cultu…ew.cfm?id=6819

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…errerid=377071
Click to expand...
Hi Granny, good morning!

While the authors of these articles are Catholic, some are coming from the opposite extreme as Fr. Rohr. (Note: I don’t put Fr. Serpa in the same category) Their assertions are sometimes unsupported and uncharitable. There are many priests that use many of the same concepts as Fr. Rohr, including the idea of “God as Mother”. Such ideas give the some of the faithful permission to relate to God in a way that is meaningful to them. There is no harm in it. Pope Francis has the same attitude as Fr. Rohr of embracing homosexual people as fellow Catholics and humans.

In fact, there are Catholics critical of Pope Francis also. Criticism in itself is not condemnation, nor is it slander.

On the other hand, Granny, a person saying that a priest is “against Catholicism” or that saying those who like his teachings “think that the Catholic Church is detrimental” without actually quoting sources is not criticism, it is slander. Journalists know this, right?

blessings, as always! 🙂
 
OneSheep said:
Hi Granny, good morning!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a good morning and afternoon because soon I will be with family, including a Christmas program where my grannykids will be singing and then some more traveling. Obviously, I will be off CAF.😃

Briefly, I have decided to put these kinds of posts by OneSheep and others into the free speech public message board category. So fire away.

When I return, I will continue with actual Catholic teachings. My apology to all that I was distracted following post 653. There are so many dangerous things being offered to Catholics, that I am often overwhelmed. And yes, that makes life on CAF both interesting and challenging…as I am learning about the wolves in our Catholic Church.

OneSheep, this means that you can continue to post all your civil charitable free speeches – whatever makes you happy. So fire away.

My choice is to discuss the real, down-to-earth Catholic doctrines. We are on the Letters S & T. Genesis 3: 11-12. 👍

OneSheep, you may fire at will.

Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top