Is it easier to post what isn't a sin?

[user3856530]

Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it so.

Just because the Catholic Church believes in something doesn’t make it so either.

I’m simply stating that I don’t believe in Original Sin. I’m not saying my belief is axiomatic (unlike the church)

 

[broconsul]

Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it so.

Just because the Catholic Church believes in something doesn’t make it so either.

I’m simply stating that I don’t believe in Original Sin. I’m not saying my belief is axiomatic (unlike the church)

You’re trolling and trying to derail the thread.

This thread isn’t about the Church’s truth statements about original sin.

If you want to have that discussion, start another thread or contribute to one of the many that (I’m sure) are already here.

 

[RosaryFan]

Original sin simply means we have the tendency to sin… and we will. The whole Adam and Eve story is symbolic.

The Adam and Eve story has symbols in it, and is not, itself, an historic event. However, it is a story of actual events with elements of symbols (such as the apple and, quite possibly, their names). There was, in fact, a first man and first woman who willingly committed a sin of disobedience toward God and as a result, allowed sin, death and decay to enter the world. They were real people, whatever their names may have been.

Original sin does not “simply mean we have a tendency to sin”. That is an effect of original sin. Original sin is not only a disordered condition we have inherited from Adam and Eve (a-k-a “first man and first woman”), but it is an actual sin which needs to be taken away in order for us to gain entry into Heaven. Original sin is not to be taken lightly, as Baptism (which removes this sin) is necessary for our salvation.

 

[Debora123]

The Adam and Eve story has symbols in it, and is not, itself, an historic event. However, it is a story of actual events with elements of symbols (such as the apple and, quite possibly, their names). There was, in fact, a first man and first woman who willingly committed a sin of disobedience toward God and as a result, allowed sin, death and decay to enter the world. They were real people, whatever their names may have been.

There couldn’t have been a first man and a first women. Neither does the Catholic Church say there’s absolute truth to that. There’s a lot of proof out there that the human race evolved from ape like creatures, therefore making it impossible for there to have been one first man and one first women. Also, the dates in the bible don’t line up with what research has shown. There’s no way there was only one man and one women during the dates when Adam and Eve supposedly were created.The Church has no problem believing in evolution.

 

[Debora123]

Original sin does not “simply mean we have a tendency to sin”. That is an effect of original sin. Original sin is not only a disordered condition we have inherited from Adam and Eve (a-k-a “first man and first woman”), but it is an actual sin which needs to be taken away in order for us to gain entry into Heaven. Original sin is not to be taken lightly, as Baptism (which removes this sin) is necessary for our salvation.

Really? That’s not what I’ve been taught, from what I understand. Original sin isn’t a specific “sin,” it’s a lot deeper than that. From what I understand, saying that original sin is some kind of “mark” we’re all born with or something is just a symbolic way of putting it. It pretty much just means that we are born imperfect and that we are all guaranteed to sin, as soon as we’re smart/old enough to do so.

I also don’t believe that just because someone isn’t baptized they’re not going to go to heaven. If this were true then why does the Church always talk about aborted babies going to heaven? And what about the indigenous? It’s not their fault if they’ve never been taught about Jesus, doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to hell just because they haven’t been baptized. What about Ghandi? He was a great person, despite not having been baptized in the Catholic Church. I’m pretty sure it’s not fair to say these people are all going to Hell just because they weren’t baptized. Neither is it what I’ve been taught in the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

Really? That’s not what I’ve been taught, from what I understand. Original sin isn’t a specific “sin,” it’s a lot deeper than that. From what I understand, saying that original sin is some kind of “mark” we’re all born with or something is just a symbolic way of putting it. It pretty much just means that we are born imperfect and that we are all guaranteed to sin, as soon as we’re smart/old enough to do so.

No, Debora, this is NOT Catholic teaching.

Original Sin is a real sin-- it is the sin of our original parents. We inherit their fallen nature as a result. We lack sanctifying grace in our souls.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

I also don’t believe that just because someone isn’t baptized they’re not going to go to heaven.

You are at odds with the Church on this matter. From the Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

If this were true then why does the Church always talk about aborted babies going to heaven?

The Church does not teach that babies go to heaven. The Church teaches we do not know, but can hope that God has some plan that is extra-sacramental.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” **allow us to hope **that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

And what about the indigenous? It’s not their fault if they’ve never been taught about Jesus, doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to hell just because they haven’t been baptized. What about Ghandi? He was a great person, despite not having been baptized in the Catholic Church. I’m pretty sure it’s not fair to say these people are all going to Hell just because they weren’t baptized. Neither is it what I’ve been taught in the Catholic Church.

See above. The Church teaches what Christ teaches, that baptism is necessary for salvation. We hope that God works extra-sacramentally for those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his Church.

 

[1ke]

There couldn’t have been a first man and a first women.

On what do you base this statement? .

Neither does the Catholic Church say there’s absolute truth to that.

Au contraire.

The Church specifically teaches what Catholics must assent to on this matter. From Humani Generis:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

There’s a lot of proof out there that the human race evolved from ape like creatures, therefore making it impossible for there to have been one first man and one first women.

This is at odds with the doctrine of the Church. Also, God specially creates the soul, so while the Church has no problem with the theory that the physical body may have evolved at whatever point God infused a soul, they became human beings and not ape-like creatures. Our spiritual soul makes us human, not animals. And from those two infused with a spiritual soul we descend.

Also, the dates in the bible don’t line up with what research has shown. There’s no way there was only one man and one women during the dates when Adam and Eve supposedly were created.The Church has no problem believing in evolution.

The Church has no teaching on any dates. Your assertion that the Church has “no problem” believing in evolution is inaccurate. There are certain elements of evolution theory that are incompatible with Church teaching and Catholic may **not **hold those positions. Read Humani Generis in full for more information.

 

[Vince1022]

Ease up, Folks. It was a joke.

That’s why I put the at the end.

 

[Vince1022]

Original sin simply means we have the tendency to sin… and we will. The whole Adam and Eve story is symbolic.

Good answer.

 

[Vince1022]

Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it so.

Just because the Catholic Church believes in something doesn’t make it so either.

I’m simply stating that I don’t believe in Original Sin. I’m not saying my belief is axiomatic (unlike the church)

Fair enough. Good answer. No problem.

But…let me ask…how do you explain or rationalize evil, suffering, etc.? Evil and suffering (etc.) exist…yes? If not, let us know. If yes, then why/how/etc. do you understand such? Thanks.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

That is my main moral and philosophical objection to Catholicism and most other Christian denominations. Because the idea that a all-powerful, all-knowing, loving god would torture his own people FOREVER merely for not worshiping him defies reason or any sort of worthwhile moral code.

As you said, under this system it doesn’t really matter what a person thinks or does (or even if the person doesn’t get a chance to do much at all like a boy or girl who died as a baby), ALL humans deserve to be tortured regardless. Merely for the ‘crime’ of being human.

It’s amazing to me that anyone can look at this world in which we live and still think that people are generally good.

We’re not.

Pax,
OA

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Rule of thumb: If you like doing it, it is probably a sin.

I thought that this was official Church doctrine for a long time. I eventually learned that the real answer is more complicated.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Let’s just summarize by saying everyone is going to Hell and leave it at that.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It’s amazing to me that anyone can look at this world in which we live and still think that people are generally good.

We’re not.

Pax,
OA

So what?
That doesn’t mean that we deserve to be tortured FOREVER.

No one deserves to be tortured forever, I think that even the victims of the great monsters of the 20th century would say that people like Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot had had enough punishment after they had been tortured for a few centuries.

There is no way that infinite punishment for limited crimes is just. Especially considering that fact that one of the ‘crimes’ is simply being born an imperfect/sinful human.

 

[RosaryFan]

Really? That’s not what I’ve been taught, from what I understand. Original sin isn’t a specific “sin,” it’s a lot deeper than that. From what I understand, saying that original sin is some kind of “mark” we’re all born with or something is just a symbolic way of putting it. It pretty much just means that we are born imperfect and that we are all guaranteed to sin, as soon as we’re smart/old enough to do so.

I also don’t believe that just because someone isn’t baptized they’re not going to go to heaven. If this were true then why does the Church always talk about aborted babies going to heaven? And what about the indigenous? It’s not their fault if they’ve never been taught about Jesus, doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to hell just because they haven’t been baptized. What about Ghandi? He was a great person, despite not having been baptized in the Catholic Church. I’m pretty sure it’s not fair to say these people are all going to Hell just because they weren’t baptized. Neither is it what I’ve been taught in the Catholic Church.

The point I was trying to make is that original sin is not MERELY OUR TENDENCY TO SIN, as you put it. It is an actual sin on our soul that needs to be taken away with Baptism. Are you trying to say that you’ve been taught that original sin simply means we have a tendency to sin, and nothing more?

 

[RosaryFan]

There couldn’t have been a first man and a first women. Neither does the Catholic Church say there’s absolute truth to that. There’s a lot of proof out there that the human race evolved from ape like creatures, therefore making it impossible for there to have been one first man and one first women. Also, the dates in the bible don’t line up with what research has shown. There’s no way there was only one man and one women during the dates when Adam and Eve supposedly were created.The Church has no problem believing in evolution.

I believe, as does the Church, that there was a first man and first woman. We couldn’t have eome from apes because we are not apes. Apes are apes and people are people. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes? And why are people different from apes? I didn’t say the church has a problem with evolution, but that is not evolution. Apes do not turn into people anymore than dogs do.

 

[Debora123]

I believe, as does the Church, that there was a first man and first woman. We couldn’t have eome from apes because we are not apes. Apes are apes and people are people. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes? And why are people different from apes? I didn’t say the church has a problem with evolution, but that is not evolution. Apes do not turn into people anymore than dogs do.

I said they were “ape like creatures,” not the same apes that exist today. There’s plenty of proof out there. There are fossils and skeletons of creatures that were somewhere in between a monkey and a human, and the older the skeletons were, the more ape like they were, while the newer ones were more human like. This is evidence that we evolved from species that didn’t start off as the human race today. We studied this and were taught about it in the Catholic school I went to. Here’s a link that talks about human evolution in case you’re interested.

mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/fosrec.html

And furthermore, according to the Bible, the earth is only under 10,000 years old, and the first humans (Adam and Eve) came into existence about 6500 years ago. Science and math have shown that this is simply not possible. If there was only one man and one women 6500 years ago, there would be a lot less people in the world today, and this is a proven mathematical and scientific fact. Not to mention scientists have found things that are well over 10,000 years old.

JPII talks about intelligent design and evolution in his books. It’s ok to believe in evolution and the CC at the same time.

 

[Debora123]

The point I was trying to make is that original sin is not MERELY OUR TENDENCY TO SIN, as you put it. It is an actual sin on our soul that needs to be taken away with Baptism. Are you trying to say that you’ve been taught that original sin simply means we have a tendency to sin, and nothing more?

Maybe not quite in that specific way, but from what I understand it means something along those lines. It’s just not possible for original sin to be an actual sin we were “born with” because we couldn’t have committed any sins before we were born.

And from everything I know about God, it just doesn’t make any sense to believe that He would send a good person to Hell simply because they never got a chance to be baptized and therefore was never cleansed of this so called “sin” they never even committed.

 

[Debora123]

I believe, as does the Church, that there was a first man and first woman. We couldn’t have eome from apes because we are not apes. Apes are apes and people are people. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes? And why are people different from apes? I didn’t say the church has a problem with evolution, but that is not evolution. Apes do not turn into people anymore than dogs do.

Here are a few things JPII said about evolution. He contradicts the Catechism and Contradicts Genesis. But remember, the Church has been wrong about many things in the past.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

And here’s what Pope Pius XII says about human evolution specifically: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”

 

[RosaryFan]

Maybe not quite in that specific way, but from what I understand it means something along those lines. It’s just not possible for original sin to be an actual sin we were “born with” because we couldn’t have committed any sins before we were born.

And from everything I know about God, it just doesn’t make any sense to believe that He would send a good person to Hell simply because they never got a chance to be baptized and therefore was never cleansed of this so called “sin” they never even committed.

No, of course we didn’t commit sin before we were born. We inherited original sin from first man and first woman. But it is a sin nonetheless and must be removed by Baptism. It is more than merely a tendency to sin. The tendency to sin (or concupiscence) is just one of the effects of original sin. Someone (in my mind a man and woman, in your mind an ape-like creature resembling man and woman) committed the first offence against God and allowed sin to enter the world. We call them “Adam and Eve” (not necessarily their real names).

If we evolved from ape-like creatures, as you say, then are you saying there is no such thing as original sin?