Looking for an in-depth explanation of CCC389 (original sin)

[simpleas]

But maybe not -if we don’t yet have an* appreciation* for our Creator, like the Prodigal for his father after spending time away from home. Perhaps we need to develop a hunger and thirst for better things, after having exhausted trying all the other things the world has to offer. Maybe we have to learn of our need for God, and of His value, of His true goodness and loveliness-before we can begin to love Him. If Baptism returns us to Adam’s state, are we necessarily going to stay there, are *we *necessarily going to love, and so obey, God any better than he did. That’s the question, that outlines the struggle, throughout our lives.

How do you compare the prodigal son, who was a sinner,with Adam who had no sin?

We can’t know who would have had an appreciation for he creator while in Eden and who would not, we are all tide in with the one man, so all are un appreciative of the creator…

Well I don’t think we could do any worse than Adam did…

 

[fhansen]

How do you compare the prodigal son, who was a sinner,with Adam who had no sin?

Well, apparently Adam was one step away from sin-until he did sin. And the main point is that the Prodigal was home once too, originally, then left home by choice. And the father said,

We can’t know who would have had an appreciation for he creator while in Eden and who would not, we are all tide in with the one man, so all are un appreciative of the creator…

Well I don’t think we could do any worse than Adam did…

But that’s the point, Adam didnt appear to love very well either. Obedience flows naturally from love of God; that’s the basis of the New Covenant.

 

[fhansen]

Didn’t quite finish one sentence in that last post. And the father said, "…this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ” Luke 15:32

Humanity, along with Adam, became lost at the Fall, spiritually dead as it were, in need of being found, in need of being reborn, reconciled and back in communion with the Father.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

I don’t think that you can say original ignorance, because original sin has to do with Adam.
It’s unique in a way I think, as it could only have been caused by this one man in order for it to be past onto all humans.
Taking the fall story, it would not seem too good on God’s part if he set Adam in the garden, with a tree and a tempting being, while ignorant of why he should not eat of the tree of good and evil.

Would it be “good” on my part if I put a delicious-looking tree in a garden that had deadly fruit on it, and told my own child not to eat of it? Would it be “good” for me to leave out important parts like that eating it would cause their own children to die and cause the death of every generation thereafter? Does this sound like a father who loves and forgives? These are some of the many problems that lead people to want to do a bit of “tampering”.

You see, if I were to give my own child a whole room full of good things and give him one bad thing that looks good, but tell him not to eat it for some dangerous reason, it is by his nature that he will doubt. “Why would my good father put this delicious thing in here if it were dangerous?” Does this doubt come from a bad place in the human, or does it come from a place from where capacity to question authority in itself is a matter of enhanced survival?

So changing it from sin to ignorance would be tampering with the doctrine. Tampering means to alter, so you would be changing the meaning, thus undermining Christ’s reason for dying for the sin of Adam.

Yes, it may undermine that reason. However, it does not undermine other reasons for Revelation, it does not undermine other reasons for salvation, for incarnation. Does Jesus “saving the world” (John 3:17) depend on the doctrine of Original Sin, or even the existence of Adam? That will depend on a person’s individual perspective. An atheist in Berlin who knows nothing of Adam, angry and despairing about the recent act of violence, may turn to Christ because of what he knows of the Gospel. The alcoholic who knows nothing of Adam may turn to Christ for freedom from his own slavery. We still need saving, and Revelation is still there, available to all of us.

I get what you are saying about ignorance, we all are ignorant of something or other to some degree, but I don’t think you can say it regarding Adam.

Thanks

Did Adam know that all of his offspring would experience death, have greater pains in childbirth, and have very difficult lives? Did he, supposedly a human being, know the entire future of his species, all of the suffering and mayhem?

You see, there are many reasons why the doctrine of Original Sin is a bit problematic for people, as you know.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes kinda.
The basis for our faith is that God created us good and we rejected him, and, he still loves us despite our rejection. He sees the good in us, and he shares in our lives so deeply that he becomes one with us in Christ.

Jesus himself is our reconciliation with the Father. It is we who make the crucifixion necessary.
When he proclaimed the kingdom, humanity could have simply said “yes” and Jesus might have lived to a ripe old age and ascended. (speculation) We were free to accept him and his message. But we didn’t.
You could argue that our rejection of him is a foregone consequence of original sin. But we also have free will at all times.
So I have to accept that we make his crucifixion the price of our redemption. God the Father is not blood thirsty, we are.

Yes, it is “we” who make it the price of his redemption, as Anselm and others put forth. Have you ever read this?

We can’t tamper with original sin because it is simply a reality. There is no tampering to be done.

Could you clarify “simply a reality”?

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

Well, apparently Adam was one step away from sin-until he did sin. And the main point is that the Prodigal was home once too, originally, then left home by choice. And the father said,

But that’s the point, Adam didnt appear to love very well either. Obedience flows naturally from love of God; that’s the basis of the New Covenant.

Thanks.

Yes I get what you are saying about the prodigal son, he was once at home, then became lost, but returned when he realised that he could have much more if he swallowed his pride and returned to his fathers wealth…home…not sure how much love was included in that change of mind over luxury.

I can’t compare Adam to anyone born after his sin, because they are not given the same gifts, or choice to love God from the get go, they…we… have to make many mistakes, or may be few in order to grow in our awareness.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Would it be “good” on my part if I put a delicious-looking tree in a garden that had deadly fruit on it, and told my own child not to eat of it? Would it be “good” for me to leave out important parts like that eating it would cause their own children to die and cause the death of every generation thereafter? Does this sound like a father who loves and forgives? These are some of the many problems that lead people to want to do a bit of “tampering”.

You see, if I were to give my own child a whole room full of good things and give him one bad thing that looks good, but tell him not to eat it for some dangerous reason, it is by his nature that he will doubt. “Why would my good father put this delicious thing in here if it were dangerous?” Does this doubt come from a bad place in the human, or does it come from a place from where capacity to question authority in itself is a matter of enhanced survival?

Hello.

The creator is not a human. Yes he came in human form when the time was right, but the creator who created the human being has a greater ‘mind’ and I have no idea how to answer your questions…

Yes, it may undermine that reason. However, it does not undermine other reasons for Revelation, it does not undermine other reasons for salvation, for incarnation. Does Jesus “saving the world” (John 3:17) depend on the doctrine of Original Sin, or even the existence of Adam? That will depend on a person’s individual perspective. An atheist in Berlin who knows nothing of Adam, angry and despairing about the recent act of violence, may turn to Christ because of what he knows of the Gospel. The alcoholic who knows nothing of Adam may turn to Christ for freedom from his own slavery. We still need saving, and Revelation is still there, available to all of us.

Apologies, I assumed we were discussing Jesus dying on the cross for the sin of Adam, not other reasons why Jesus gave his life for us. I know there are other ways of thinking and understanding the revelation mystery.
According to the Catholic understanding in many places, Jesus saving the world is for the original sin of the first man.
I do agree though, that people may come to know God through others living now, God living through them, and they may never have heard about original sin or Adam.

Did Adam know that all of his offspring would experience death, have greater pains in childbirth, and have very difficult lives? Did he, supposedly a human being, know the entire future of his species, all of the suffering and mayhem?

You see, there are many reasons why the doctrine of Original Sin is a bit problematic for people, as you know.

I don’t know, you’d have to ask him…

Seriously though, yes I know original sin can be problematic, I do wonder how many people actually sit down and think about it, and even then, it would be easier to not bother, because various questions arise that just never be satisfied.

 

[ffg]

I’m probably not going to be saying anything new vs the last few pages, but my take -

To tamper with a term is to change it’s definition.

To tamper with a term that incorporates an ‘is’ function, is to swap ‘is’ with ‘is not’.

So to tamper with OS is to say ‘OS is not’.

In doing so, one walks down a path others have mentioned which includes a lack of a need for redemption.

However, I think some of the questions float the other way…

for instance, if ‘is not’, then why punish in the way revealed (mortality) in the first place?

There would not be a need to punish in such a manner because there would not be a need for the redemption.

So, mortality entering the world as a punishment for sin #1, the punishment kind of reveals the reality of OS, which leads to the lack of a need to consider ‘is not’.

Thus leave ‘is’ as is.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.

Yes I get what you are saying about the prodigal son, he was once at home, then became lost, but returned when he realised that he could have much more if he swallowed his pride and returned to his fathers wealth…home…not sure how much love was included in that change of mind over luxury.

I can’t compare Adam to anyone born after his sin, because they are not given the same gifts, or choice to love God from the get go, they…we… have to make many mistakes, or may be few in order to grow in our awareness.

Well. by Adam’s actions it’s at least pretty obvious that he needed to learn a thing or two as well.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello.

The creator is not a human. Yes he came in human form when the time was right, but the creator who created the human being has a greater ‘mind’ and I have no idea how to answer your questions…

We can answer the questions through our own experience of Love, Simpleas. As I had said before, if something about our Father sounds unloving, then we can put it in the “mystery” category. We can present something this way “I know this may not sound like Love, but this is what is taught.”

Apologies, I assumed we were discussing Jesus dying on the cross for the sin of Adam, not other reasons why Jesus gave his life for us. I know there are other ways of thinking and understanding the revelation mystery.
According to the Catholic understanding in many places, Jesus saving the world is for the original sin of the first man.
I do agree though, that people may come to know God through others living now, God living through them, and they may never have heard about original sin or Adam.

What I am saying is that not only could a person who chose Baptism never have heard of original sin, but that his own need for salvation from slavery or despair supplants any need for a scripture lesson from Genesis. “God is Love” is already a mysterious enough concept, and the person who commits to Love, is in relationship with Love, has found a salvation that may be completely without any regard to notions of original sin.

And how does this person proceed in Love? Does she approach people seeing their beauty and worth, loving without condition, or does she see something bad in people, perhaps believing that people “deserve” a permanent punishment from God, even though it can be shown that people misbehave because of ignorance or blindness? And then, in which direction does the doctrine of original sin sway her approach?

These are very important questions, right?

Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels is centered on the real suffering, real despair, real resentment/hatred, real physical and spiritual maladies that people experienced. There was no reason to sell a story about Adam or some great break in friendship between God and man. Instead, Jesus showed us that God is our loving Father, a friend always waiting, always understanding, always forgiving. God’s love for us is a constant, not dependent on our behaviors.

I don’t know, you’d have to ask him…

Seriously though, yes I know original sin can be problematic, I do wonder how many people actually sit down and think about it, and even then, it would be easier to not bother, because various questions arise that just never be satisfied.

Whatever the answers are, we can rest assured that when we see with eyes of Love, through the eyes of Christ, then we can be satisfied. Words don’t matter as much as the love behind the words.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning ffg,

I’m probably not going to be saying anything new vs the last few pages, but my take -

To tamper with a term is to change it’s definition.

To tamper with a term that incorporates an ‘is’ function, is to swap ‘is’ with ‘is not’.

So to tamper with OS is to say ‘OS is not’.

Perhaps, but a “tampering” is not necessarily an all-or-nothing action. .For example, look at these “is nots”:

“Original Sin is not original lack of human worth”
“Original Sin is not God breaking His relationship with people, or people knowingly and willingly breaking a relationship with God.”
“Original Sin is not man intending to shun Love.”
“Original Sin is not man incurring a debt that needs a death or other punishment for repayment.”

Do one of these tamper with the definition of Original Sin?

In doing so, one walks down a path others have mentioned which includes a lack of a need for redemption.

However, I think some of the questions float the other way…

for instance, if ‘is not’, then why punish in the way revealed (mortality) in the first place?

There would not be a need to punish in such a manner because there would not be a need for the redemption.

So, mortality entering the world as a punishment for sin #1, the punishment kind of reveals the reality of OS, which leads to the lack of a need to consider ‘is not’.

Thus leave ‘is’ as is.

You see, we are to see God as a loving Father, that is where the problems with OS start. We can see our loving Father as a presence that loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, as I have learned from my readings in Catholic approach to theology. Would my own loving father punish me and all my children and grandchildren for disobeying him? No, he would not, of course not. It would not matter what ignorant mindset I would have in such defiance. He would forgive me no matter what. My dad is this way, he loves because of who he is.

Whatever the case, I completely respect your own wish to leave it as it is. It is very important for some of us to have a solid orthodoxy, ideally with unchanging words and concepts.

 

[davidv]

Good Morning ffg,

Perhaps, but a “tampering” is not necessarily an all-or-nothing action. .For example, look at these “is nots”:

“Original Sin is not original lack of human worth”
“Original Sin** is not **God breaking His relationship with people, or people knowingly and willingly breaking a relationship with God.”
“Original Sin is not man intending to shun Love.”
“Original Sin is not man incurring a debt that needs a death or other punishment for repayment.”

Do one of these tamper with the definition of Original Sin?

Yes the part in bold. Why? Because the Original Sin by Adam was a deliberate, knowing act to disobey a direct command from God. This is the epitome of breaking a relationship with God.

You see, we are to see God as a loving Father, that is where the problems with OS start. We can see our loving Father as a presence that loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, as I have learned from my readings in Catholic approach to theology. Would my own loving father punish me and all my children and grandchildren for disobeying him? No, he would not, of course not. It would not matter what ignorant mindset I would have in such defiance. He would forgive me no matter what. My dad is this way, he loves because of who he is.

Whatever the case, I completely respect your own wish to leave it as it is. It is very important for some of us to have a solid orthodoxy, ideally with unchanging words and concepts.

Sounds like a judgment against God using human standards.

 

[ffg]

Good Morning ffg,

Perhaps, but a “tampering” is not necessarily an all-or-nothing action. .For example, look at these “is nots”:

“Original Sin is not original lack of human worth”
“Original Sin is not God breaking His relationship with people, or people knowingly and willingly breaking a relationship with God.”
“Original Sin is not man intending to shun Love.”
“Original Sin is not man incurring a debt that needs a death or other punishment for repayment.”

Do one of these tamper with the definition of Original Sin?

You see, we are to see God as a loving Father, that is where the problems with OS start. We can see our loving Father as a presence that loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, as I have learned from my readings in Catholic approach to theology. Would my own loving father punish me and all my children and grandchildren for disobeying him? No, he would not, of course not. It would not matter what ignorant mindset I would have in such defiance. He would forgive me no matter what. My dad is this way, he loves because of who he is.

Whatever the case, I completely respect your own wish to leave it as it is. It is very important for some of us to have a solid orthodoxy, ideally with unchanging words and concepts.

Thanks for the reply,

Let’s see if this helps -

The arena I was playing in was ‘existence vs. non existence’.

It’s core, because truth is the goal.

The arena you are playing in is ‘existence and revealed definition vs. existence and any other definition?’

The problem is, and why ‘tamper’ is not good, is that as you go through a mind maze, you walk yourself away from the binding goal of Truth.

Just like marriage, we can’t redefine OS.

If we tamper, we walk away from truth.

That’s why the CCC is spelled out the way it is, this game has been well played through the centuries.

It’s good to poke and question, but we must be alert for ‘the’ answer where truth is involved.

With OS, as has been mentioned, it ‘is’ and as defined because historical events would not be, if not.

 

[simpleas]

Well. by Adam’s actions it’s at least pretty obvious that he needed to learn a thing or two as well.

Well we can’t know that for sure either, isn’t it possible that Adam so wanted to be like god that he didn’t think about anyone but himself, deliberately I mean, not that he needed to learn anything like love etc, he could have just have been selfish. Of course we don’t want to think this of him, rather think that he did need to learn more about love.

 

[ffg]

Well we can’t know that for sure either, isn’t it possible that Adam so wanted to be like god that he didn’t think about anyone but himself, deliberately I mean, not that he needed to learn anything like love etc, he could have just have been selfish. Of course we don’t want to think this of him, rather think that he did need to learn more about love.

The problem with a power hungry Adam is that is not what we have in the one version of the story that exists.

When temptation first rears it’s head, the humans defend / restate God’s law.

After sin, is shame, not the promise by the tempter, or any reference that a goal was met.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

We can answer the questions through our own experience of Love, Simpleas. As I had said before, if something about our Father sounds unloving, then we can put it in the “mystery” category. We can present something this way “I know this may not sound like Love, but this is what is taught.”

Ok onesheep, if you know the answers, why did you ask the questions?

That’s fine to think of it that way, put it in the mystery file as unexplained, I suppose we need to do this with somethings because we can’t answer everything.

What I am saying is that not only could a person who chose Baptism never have heard of original sin, but that his own need for salvation from slavery or despair supplants any need for a scripture lesson from Genesis. “God is Love” is already a mysterious enough concept, and the person who commits to Love, is in relationship with Love, has found a salvation that may be completely without any regard to notions of original sin.

And how does this person proceed in Love? Does she approach people seeing their beauty and worth, loving without condition, or does she see something bad in people, perhaps believing that people “deserve” a permanent punishment from God, even though it can be shown that people misbehave because of ignorance or blindness? And then, in which direction does the doctrine of original sin sway her approach?

These are very important questions, right?

Yes good and important questions, but we are talking about Adam and sin.

Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels is centered on the real suffering, real despair, real resentment/hatred, real physical and spiritual maladies that people experienced. There was no reason to sell a story about Adam or some great break in friendship between God and man. Instead, Jesus showed us that God is our loving Father, a friend always waiting, always understanding, always forgiving. God’s love for us is a constant, not dependent on our behaviors.

I don’t think Jesus ever did speak about a break in friendship with God, I recall he referred to God making man male and female and about the liar from the beginning (satan).

I agree God is love, always there with us even in our sin, but one must confess their sinful behaviour in order to be forgiven, to be in a state of grace before receiving the body and blood of Christ. So this is dependent on our behaviour according to the Catholic faith.

Whatever the answers are, we can rest assured that when we see with eyes of Love, through the eyes of Christ, then we can be satisfied. Words don’t matter as much as the love behind the words.

 

[simpleas]

The problem with a power hungry Adam is that is not what we have in the one version of the story that exists.

When temptation first rears it’s head, the humans defend / restate God’s law.

After sin, is shame, not the promise by the tempter, or any reference that a goal was met.

They did* become like one of us, knowing good and evil*

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Ok onesheep, if you know the answers, why did you ask the questions?

I didn’t give an answer, actually. I gave an answer such that you can draw from your own experience for the answer you find within.

Yes good and important questions, but we are talking about Adam and sin.

We are talking about original sin, and we are called to see all scripture in light of revelation. From Revelation we know that God always forgives, as Jesus forgave from the cross without condition. Does the doctrine of OS reflect this absolute and infinite love of God? Does it reflect a perfection in love and justice? These are questions that motivate some people to “tamper” things a bit.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning David,

Yes the part in bold. Why? Because the Original Sin by Adam was a deliberate, knowing act to disobey a direct command from God. This is the epitome of breaking a relationship with God.

The problem is, though, that those of us who are parents know that when our child breaks a command we really care about, they are doing so without knowing what they are doing. Their doubt and defiance does not indicate an intent to break a relationship, so why would a parent take it that way?

Again, this is going to depend on personal experience of love. Perhaps there are parents out there who really do take disobedience as a direct communication that relationship is no longer wanted. If this is a person’s experience with their own parents, and their own parents are their primary experience of love, then she/he will be more inclined to make sense of the doctrine of original sin.

Sounds like a judgment against God using human standards.

It is not a judgment against anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt, David. If a person experiences God’s love in an infinite way, yet sees the doctrine of os as a conflict, then in turn seeks to “tamper” with the doctrine rather than compromise what he knows about Love, this is not a judgment against anyone.

It can be seen as a “judgment” against the doctrine, but that observation does not keep in mind that the Gospel is a living document. Revelation unfolds, and it unfolds through the Spirit.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for the reply,

Let’s see if this helps -

The arena I was playing in was ‘existence vs. non existence’.

It’s core, because truth is the goal.

The arena you are playing in is ‘existence and revealed definition vs. existence and any other definition?’

The problem is, and why ‘tamper’ is not good, is that as you go through a mind maze, you walk yourself away from the binding goal of Truth.

Just like marriage, we can’t redefine OS.

If we tamper, we walk away from truth.

If a person experiences Truth as knowing that God always loves and forgives, yet is under the impression that the doctrine of original sin shows a God who does not forgive, they might want to “tamper” with the doctrine in order to make it reflect a God who forgives. In addition, if a person’s experience of people is such that they can see that Adam had no ill intent, yet the doctrine appears to blame people’s nature (rather than their ignorance or blindness) a person may also be motivated to “tamper”.

For the person who experiences the nature of man as a negative, or God as conditionally forgiving, then yes, that person may believe that the tampering I described above is a walk away from the truth. But to the person “tampering”, it is not.

That’s why the CCC is spelled out the way it is, this game has been well played through the centuries.

It’s good to poke and question, but we must be alert for ‘the’ answer where truth is involved.

With OS, as has been mentioned, it ‘is’ and as defined because historical events would not be, if not.

That would depend on a person taking Genesis 2&3 as a historical document.

Are you understanding why a person might be inclined to “tamper”? And if so, the question is how much “tampering” might be acceptable? Would it be fruitful to broaden the doctrine in order to incorporate a wider experience of God’s love?

Thanks for your response!