Mormons: Your take on the concept of "Orginal Sin"

[zerinus]

I’m an Ex-Mormon. My ‘first’ baptism was a Mormon baptism. I say ‘first’ because upon joining a mainstream Christian Church the Mormon baptism was considered invalid and re-baptism was required. I was Mormon for 6 years and I think it was 1982 that I left if I remember right; I was Eastern Orthodox for about 25 years, then joined communion with Rome (i.e. became Catholic) for less than one year. I have something to say about Mormon ‘Original Sin’.

Mormons don’t like to call what Adam did a “sin”, they are more comfortable with calling it a “transgression”. Brigham Young said that “Adam fell up”. Christ, therefore did not ‘correct’ what Adam did, rather both what Christ did and what Adam did were all apart of the Mormon plan of redemption. Adam’s ‘transgression’ was a part of what was necessary to bring about our eternal ‘exaltation’. In fact Mormons believe that Adam was a ‘God’, just as Jesus was a ‘God’. A long time ago a council of ‘Gods’ got together and planned out how the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother would be able through that “eternal progression” [user]Deserwest[/user] made reference to could themselves become ‘Gods’ one day. You see Adam had to ‘transgress’ as this was the only way that his body could be effected in such a way that the offspring of Adam & Eve would be physical bodies. Thus the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother could obtain physical bodies (a necessity to becoming ‘Gods’) by being born through Adam & Eve after their ‘fall’.

So, it really is quite a bit different from the Catholic doctrine of original sin!

You are making false statements about Mormon beliefs which are unworthy of further comment.

 

[zerinus]

We may disagree but I do trust you.

Thank you!

 

[SteveVH]

Theory or not, that was the historical background to the doctrine of the Original Sin in the Catholic Church, and the struggles that Christian thinkers and theologians have had with it over the centuries; and it does explain the lack of clarity in which the doctrine is currently worded in official Catholic literature such as in the Catechism. Most Catholics today don’t understand the full meaning and implication of the Original Sin because of the ambiguity and lack of clarity with which it is expressed.

I’m not sure how you know what most Catholics understand or don’t understand, but the Church’s teaching on the subject seems very clear to me and very well thought out. The Catechism should clear up any misconceptions any Catholic may have. I realize that you want to believe that this has sinister motives behind it, cover-ups, etc. I’m trying to imagine all of the bishops who participated in this document sitting behind closed doors with the Pope, twisting their moustaches and wondering “how are we going to get out of this one?”

Adam was no less “human” before the Fall than he was after the Fall. His “humanity” hadn’t changed any as a consequence.

Actually it is just the opposite. Adam was more human before the fall than after. Subsequent to the fall we became less human than God created us to be and only become fully human through Jesus Christ. It is the purpose of baptism. The first humans (Adam and Eve) were endowed with God’s own Spirit. The fall removed supernatural life from us which can only be replaced by baptism. It is the divine spark which allows us to be one with Him.

It is the commission of sin that makes someone unholy, not having the tendency to commit sin. The tendency is a temptation. The Scriptures teach that Jesus suffered temptation in every way as we are. Did that make Him unholy? Of course not. If He had yielded to the temptation he would have become unholy. But as it is He didn’t, therefore He remained holy.

You are just repeating what I have already said.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Adam and Eve were subject to temptation prior to the fall, otherwise they would not have been tempted in the first place. Temptation does not equal sin. We still, in the face of temptation, have the choice to make to either give in to the temptation or to resist it.

However, you are incorrect in stating that “The tendency is a temptation”. The tendency, or concupisence is not temptation, it only weakens our ability to resist temptation. The flesh has become stronger than the will - a result of the fall.

We too would be holy if we never yielded to a temptation to sin.

Yes, and there is the rub. None of us have been able to live without yielding to sin, have we? Original sin has changed human nature. Christ, however, was born free from original sin and this is point cannot be stressed enough. To believe that God could co-exist with sin in His human nature, or to have any flaw in either of his natures, human or divine, is to have no understanding of who God is. It is why He did not suffer the effects of original sin. He chose to die. We have no choice. He resisted temptation. We do not. If you can find any evidence of His suffering from the effects of original sin please tell me.

That is why members of God’s true Church are called “saints”. A saint is someone who is sanctified or made holy.

Yes zerinus, I am very familiar with Saints. Remember, I’m Catholic and I do belong to God’s true Church.

That is really an arbitrary distinction that has no meaning in practice. If you are guilty, then you are guilty, and you deserve punishment for your guilt. If you are going to go to hell for either “guilt,” then I dont see a real distinction between the two.

I know you don’t, but I don’t think we have to go over this again, do you? It has been explained several times now and you certainly have the right to disagree with me.

That is something that I have never been able to understand. How can being born guilty be comparable to a sickness? There is no such thing as being “infected with the sin of Adam”. How is one “infected with the sin of Adam”? By being guilty without having done anything wrong? How? I don’t feel guilty for the sin of Adam. I only feel guilty for my own sins. That is an untrue statement by reason of being nonsensical.

Nor do I feel guilty for Adam’s sin. I didn’t commit it. And even though I suffer from the effects of Adam’s sin, it is I who still choose to sin. Nevertheless, Adam’s sin still affects me and has weakened my resistance to temptation. I may agree with you to some extent here zerinus, in that there may be a better word than “guilt” when speaking of original sin. The Church has gone to great lengths to explain the difference, however you choose to believe that this explanation is some kind of cover-up rather than a real attempt at giving a clear understanding of the matter. I can’t help you there.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You are making false statements about Mormon beliefs which are unworthy of further comment.

This was what I was taught as well. Now I am going to have to see who taught this. Again its my understanding from my own LDS grandmother. Maybe it was taken out.
The fall was a good thing… right? At least it was many years ago within Mormon confines. I see that it was not because of the Crucifix in our Church. But it happened and we have our Savior / God to forgive us.

In Christ
Rich

 

[zerinus]

I realize that you want to believe that this has sinister motives behind it, cover-ups, etc. I’m trying to imagine all of the bishops who participated in this document sitting behind closed doors with the Pope, twisting their moustaches and wondering “how are we going to get out of this one?”

Perhaps cover-up isn’t exactly the right word, but ambiguity would be more correct.

Actually it is just the opposite. Adam was more human before the fall than after. . . .

That I suppose depends on your definition of “human”.

Yes, and there is the rub. None of us have been able to live without yielding to sin, have we? Original sin has changed human nature. Christ, however, was born free from original sin and this is point cannot be stressed enough.

That is where I have my most serious disagreement with you. Jesus had to inherit the consequences of the Fall to be able to perform the Atonement.

To believe that God could co-exist with sin in His human nature, . . .

That is a meaningless assertion, and is typical of the ambiguity with which Catholic theology discusses this doctrine. What does that statement actually mean? How does the Fall entail “sin in human nature”? You just told us that you don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy, but the commission of sin makes us unholy. So we are not unholy until we commit sin. So how could Jesus have been unholy unless He had committed sin? And if He was not unholy because He hadn’t committed any sin, how could there have been “sin in His human nature” as a consequence of the fall? I don’t think you are thinking through what you are saying. You are just rattling off Catholic doctrine without thinking through what it actually means. Peter says:

1 Peter 2:

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

How could Jesus have borne our sins in His own body on the cross if He had not inherited the consequences of the Original Sin? How could He have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), if He had not suffered the consequences of the Original Sin?

. . . or to have any flaw in either of his natures, human or divine, is to have no understanding of who God is. It is why He did not suffer the effects of original sin.

You still haven’t answered my question of how it was possible for Jesus who was God to be tempted, while James tells us that God cannot be tempted?

He chose to die. We have no choice.

Which ignores the quote I gave you from Paul, which says that Jesus took upon Himself not the nature of angels, but the nature of fallen man, precisely so He could die for our sins.

He resisted temptation. We do not.

Of course we do, but not always as well as He did, because He was God, and had greater power than we have. He overcame temptation on our behalf, to make up for our shortfall.

If you can find any evidence of His suffering from the effects of original sin please tell me.

Sure! Death and temptation.

Yes zerinus, I am very familiar with Saints. Remember, I’m Catholic and I do belong to God’s true Church.

Except that in our Church you don’t have to be “beatified” to become a saint. You become a saint by virtue of membership of God’s true Church, as was the case in the early Church.

 

[SteveVH]

That is where I have my most serious disagreement with you. Jesus had to inherit the consequences of the Fall to be able to perform the Atonement.

Yes, it seems like this point has come to the surface; the nature of Jesus Christ. After the fall, all men became sinful. Not a one of us has lived free from sin (except Mary, which we can discuss later). You believe that Jesus took on our sinful nature, suffering all the effects of original sin, but, because He is divine, he had the power to not commit personal sin. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

As a Catholic, I believe that God took on flesh, human nature, but was not subject to the effects of original sin. His will was not weakened, His intellect not darkened. His tendency was perfect obedience rather then disobedience. His human will was perfectly aligned to His divine will and the Father’s will.

How does the Fall entail “sin in human nature”? You just told us that you don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy, but the commission of sin makes us unholy. So we are not unholy until we commit sin.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. We are unholy because of the fall. It is why baptism is required. We can only become holy through Jesus Christ, the second Adam. You are correct in saying that I don’t believe “the Fall alone makes us unholy”. It does make us unholy, but so does the commission of personal sin. The only way that “we are not unholy until we commit sin” is subsequent to baptism which takes away all sin, original and personal. We are then subject only to the sins committed after baptism, which, for most of us, still remains a huge problem because even though, through the merits of Jesus Christ, original sin is wiped away, we still live in the fallen state with its attendant weaknesses.

So how could Jesus have been unholy unless He had committed sin?

I have never said that Jesus was unholy in any way, shape or form.

And if He was not unholy because He hadn’t committed any sin, how could there have been “sin in His human nature” as a consequence of the fall?

I have never said there could have been “sin in His human nature” as a consequence of the fall or any other way. I have said just the opposite.

How could Jesus have borne our sins in His own body on the cross if He had not inherited the consequences of the Original Sin? How could He have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), if He had not suffered the consequences of the Original Sin?

While this has already been said several times, let me say this as clearly as possible.

Christ bore our sins (not His, He had none) on the cross because that was His entire purpose for becoming incarnate, suffering and dying. It is how we are saved. What could this possibly have to do with Him inheriting the consequences of original sin? It is only because He was without sin that His sacrifice has merit. We have already discussed the issue surrounding temptation. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were still subject to temptation. Therefore, temptation is not a consequence of the Fall. Becoming weakened to the point that we cannot resist temptation is a consequence of the Fall and one from which Jesus did not suffer.

You still haven’t answered my question of how it was possible for Jesus who was God to be tempted, while James tells us that God cannot be tempted?

Have you not read in Scripture (Mt 4:1-11) where the devil tempted Jesus, while He was fasting, with turning stones into bread and asking Him to throw Himself down from the parapet of the Temple so that His angles might save Him and then offering Him all of the kingdoms of the world if only He would bow down and worship Satan? How can you say that Jesus could not be tempted? Scripture is very clear on this point.

Sure! Death and temptation.

Once again, Christ, who was not subject to death, chose death in order to save us. He did not have to die precisely because He did not suffer the consequences of original sin. We have already discussed the fact that temptation is not a consequence of the fall.
I don’t know how to put it more plainly.

Except that in our Church you don’t have to be “beatified” to become a saint. You become a saint by virtue of membership of God’s true Church, as was the case in the early Church.

Yes I had forgotten. In the Catholic Church we have those members who fall short. I am one of those and would not call myself a saint (but I’m working on it). Sounds like it is much easier in a church where all that is required is just signing up.

 

[Deserwest]

I don’t believe you are a Mormon. You are somebody (ex-Mormon probably) who knows something about Mormonism, and is now falsely pretending to be a Mormon in order to derail this thread. I warn others not to buy into your false claims to be a Mormon, or to represent Mormonism in any way.

I do not represent Mormonism in anyway, you are quite correct on that. My views are my own. As to the rest of your opinion, it is irrelevant.

 

[zerinus]

Not a one of us has lived free from sin . . . You believe that Jesus took on our sinful nature, suffering all the effects of original sin, . . .

You need to define “sinful nature”. I don’t know what that means. He inherited a body just like ours, as Paul teaches, subject to the same temptations as we are.

. . . but, because He is divine, he had the power to not commit personal sin. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?

Nearly. I would say because He was divine He had greater power to resist temptation, thus remaining without sin.

As a Catholic, I believe that God took on flesh, human nature, but was not subject to the effects of original sin.

That does not mean a lot unless you are able to accurately describe (and justify) what you mean by “effects of the original sin”.

His will was not weakened, His intellect not darkened.

I don’t think that nobody’s is.

His tendency was perfect obedience rather then disobedience. His human will was perfectly aligned to His divine will and the Father’s will.

Jesus told His disciples: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). I think that Jesus inherited a “flesh” that was as “weak” as ours. But a “spirit” that was many times stronger (infinitely stronger). There are many scriptures that talk about the warfare between the flesh and the spirit. Here is one:

Galatians 5:

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The “tendency” is in the flesh. The “will” is in the Spirit—and they are different. Jesus inherited a flesh that was no different than ours. There are many scriptures that teach this. You can’t deny it. That “weakness,” “tendency,” “concupiscence,” whatever you might like to call it, was in His flesh. His will, His power, was in His spirit. The “Fall” affects our flesh; it does not affect our spirits. His flesh was no different than ours, as far as weaknesses and temptations were concerned. His spirit was a different story altogether. It was divine, unlike ours, and had infinite power. Thus He was able to win the “war” between the spirit and the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3) which none of us were able to. Your mistake arises from the failure to distinguish between these two different entities—spirit and flesh. The fact that Jesus inherited a weakened flesh like ours did not make Him “sinful”. It provided Him with the opportunity to “fight” against that “weakness” and overcome it—which none of us were able to do. He did that on our behalf; and His victory becomes our victory through our faith in Him and obedience to His commandments.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. We are unholy because of the fall. It is why baptism is required.

I thought we had agreed that we become unholy, sinners, etc. because of our own sins, not the sin of Adam. This is how the conversation went:

We too would be holy if we never yielded to a temptation to sin.

Yes, and there is the rub. None of us have been able to live without yielding to sin, have we?

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been naive enough to expect it to last very long; but that is what you were saying at that time.

We can only become holy through Jesus Christ, the second Adam.

I agree; but the Atonement of Jesus Christ has an unconditional effect on little children. We are born holy; then become unholy only through our own sins which we commit thereafter, not purely as a result of the sin of Adam.

You are correct in saying that I don’t believe "the Fall alone makes us unholy".

Now you are contradicting yourself!

It does make us unholy, but so does the commission of personal sin.

And contradicting yourself again the second time! I am lost now. I don’t know what you believe.

The only way that “we are not unholy until we commit sin” is subsequent to baptism which takes away all sin, original and personal.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis for that.

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I have never said that Jesus was unholy in any way, shape or form.

I have never said there could have been “sin in His human nature” as a consequence of the fall or any other way. I have said just the opposite.

You are pulling that quote out of this passage ignoring the context:

That is a meaningless assertion, and is typical of the ambiguity with which Catholic theology discusses this doctrine. What does that statement actually mean? How does the Fall entail “sin in human nature”? You just told us that you don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy, but the commission of sin makes us unholy. So we are not unholy until we commit sin. So how could Jesus have been unholy unless He had committed sin? And if He was not unholy because He hadn’t committed any sin, how could there have been “sin in His human nature” as a consequence of the fall? I don’t think you are thinking through what you are saying. You are just rattling off Catholic doctrine without thinking through what it actually means. Peter says:

1 Peter 2:

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

How could Jesus have borne our sins in His own body on the cross if He had not inherited the consequences of the Original Sin? How could He have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), if He had not suffered the consequences of the Original Sin?

And you are not really paying much attention to what I am saying, and you also keep reneging on what you had previously said, and that makes carrying on this discussion stressful and time consuming. You had initially accepted that “you don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy;” and now you are reneging on what you had said. I think if we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we need to stop her, retrace our steps, and start from the beginning, and take it one logical step at a time, otherwise we will be all over the place, and going nowhere in particular.

Yes I had forgotten. In the Catholic Church we have those members who fall short. I am one of those and would not call myself a saint (but I’m working on it). Sounds like it is much easier in a church where all that is required is just signing up.

Being “saints” does not mean that one is sinless, or perfect. Paul writes to the early saints, addressing them as saints, and then admonishes them for committing various kinds of sins. We are saints in the same sense that Paul addresses the early Christians as saints. We are no more sinless than they were, and we are called saints for the same reasons that they were.

 

[SteveVH]

You need to define “sinful nature”. I don’t know what that means. He inherited a body just like ours, as Paul teaches, subject to the same temptations as we are.

How many times do we have to go over this before you are able to distinguish between sin, weakness and temptation? TEMPTATION IS NOT A SIN! TEMPTATION IS NOT A WEAKNESS! It is because of our weakened state that we fall prey to temptation and then enter into sin. What about this don’t you get? It is not complicated.

Our sinful nature is a tendency to give into temptation, rather than to resist temptation. It is only when we give in to temptation that we sin. When we resist temptation, with the help of God, we are blessed. The condition of the world gives testimony to this truth, zerinus, and one would have to be blind not to see that. The world changed because of the disobedience of Adam. It is just a fact of life, a self evident truth.

Nearly. I would say because He was divine He had greater power to resist temptation, thus remaining without sin.

Then He was really only pretending to be human, or appearing to be human. As I have told you before, the Church has already condemned this as heresy. Christ was like us in every way except sin. He could resist temptation, and thus remain free from sin, because He did not inherit the weakness of fallen man. It has nothing to do with pulling out the “divinity card” because His humanity was too weak. He was born free from this weakness and His humanity was in the state of original innocence and justice, just as Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

That does not mean a lot unless you are able to accurately describe (and justify) what you mean by “effects of the original sin”.

I’m done going around in circles here. We have already discussed this more than a few times. You have even agreed that we suffer from the effects of original sin and have even listed them yourself. One more time: Our intellect was darkened, our will was weakened and we are attracted to sin. We are subject to suffering, sickness and death. Ok? None of this existed prior to the Fall.

I don’t think that nobody’s is.

Well, you’re just wrong, but you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Jesus told His disciples: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). I think that Jesus inherited a “flesh” that was as “weak” as ours. But a “spirit” that was many times stronger (infinitely stronger). There are many scriptures that talk about the warfare between the flesh and the spirit. Here is one:

Galatians 5:

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Again, believe what you wish. Jesus wasn’t talking about His flesh and spirit, but the flesh and spirit of fallen man. These quotes only prove my point. Man suffers from the effects of original sin so that “ye cannot do the things that ye would”. Christ, on the other hand, could do the things He would because He was free from the effects of original sin even though He was truly, 100% human. The difference is that we are not 100% human. Original sin has made us less than human and we are made fully human only in Christ.

The “tendency” is in the flesh. The “will” is in the Spirit—and they are different. Jesus inherited a flesh that was no different than ours. There are many scriptures that teach this. You can’t deny it. That “weakness,” “tendency,” “concupiscence,” whatever you might like to call it, was in His flesh. His will, His power, was in His spirit. The “Fall” affects our flesh; it does not affect our spirits.

Well, I certainly can and do deny it. The death about which God warned Adam and Eve was not only physical death, but more importantly, spiritual death. If our spirits were not weakened, we could control our flesh.
zerinus;7212390:

Your mistake arises from the failure to distinguish between these two different entities—spirit and flesh.

I just did.

I thought we had agreed that we become unholy, sinners, etc. because of our own sins, not the sin of Adam.

I have never agreed that Adam’s sin has had no effect on us. If it is my lack of communication skills that is at fault then I apologize. What I have consitently said is that we are made sinners (just as Paul said) through the sin of Adam as well as our own personal sins. I have also distinguished between the two, more than a few times, and see no reason to repeat that here.

 

[SteveVH]

asdfasdfasdadfasdfasdf

 

[SteveVH]

You had initially accepted that “you don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy;” and now you are reneging on what you had said. I think if we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we need to stop her, retrace our steps, and start from the beginning, and take it one logical step at a time, otherwise we will be all over the place, and going nowhere in particular.

How in the world am I reneging on what I had said? You are correct, I said I "don’t believe that the Fall alone makes us unholy”, but that we are made unholy also by our own sins. We are made unholy in two ways. Do you understand?

Being “saints” does not mean that one is sinless, or perfect. Paul writes to the early saints, addressing them as saints, and then admonishes them for committing various kinds of sins. We are saints in the same sense that Paul addresses the early Christians as saints. We are no more sinless than they were, and we are called saints for the same reasons that they were.

My comment began as a joke, zerinus. You can call yourself whatever you want. I will call myself a sinner who hopes to someday become a saint.

 

[SteveVH]

I do not represent Mormonism in anyway, you are quite correct on that. My views are my own. As to the rest of your opinion, it is irrelevant.

Deserwest, I’m just curious. You state that you are Mormon and then say that you do not represent Mormonism in any way. Where are you coming from, if I may ask? Nothing personal here, but it does beg the question.

Thanks

 

[zerinus]

Okay, SteveVH; I have read through this thread, and I find that all the questions you are raising have already been answered. Your reasoning is plainly illogical and inconsistent, and you are trying to win an unwinnable argument by sounding belligerent; and I am not going to waste time on that. Suffice it to say that Jesus inherited all the consequences of the original sin like the rest of us; but being divine had the greater ability to resist Satan and overcome him, as suggested in this scripture:

Mark 3:

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Satan is strong, stronger than we are; but Jesus was stronger; therefore He was able to fight with and overcome him, or bind him, which is another way of saying, not yielding to his temptations. That is how He was able to remain completely without sin, which none of us have been able to do.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Okay, SteveVH; I have read through this thread, and I find that all the questions you are raising have already been answered. Your reasoning is plainly illogical and inconsistent, and you are trying to win an unwinnable argument by sounding belligerent; and I am not going to waste time on that. Suffice it to say that Jesus inherited all the consequences of the original sin like the rest of us; but being divine had the greater ability to resist Satan and overcome him, as suggested in this scripture:
Mark 3:

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
Satan is strong, stronger than we are; but Jesus was stronger; therefore He was able to fight with and overcome him, or bind him, which is another way of saying, not yielding to his temptations. That is how He was able to remain completely without sin, which none of us have been able to do.

Zerinus, my Catholic understanding of original sin is found when I read about the prodigal son.
He had everything he could have ever desired but was tempted to go out on his own to find what was most important in his life. So breaking the bond that he had with his father who loved him he sent out on his journey. You know the story. He progressed back to his fathers loving arms, where he had began, never to leave again. For me this sums up my own life. Now that I am home in Gods Church I rely on my confessions to stay close to His son, the Sacraments and I await my final joy, to be back in that garden forever.

Why does this have to happen? It’s just something that Gods creation has to go through I guess. Because in the end we are not gods, yet we are created by Him, for Him. Maybe its all about finding Him and choosing Him.

As to original sin, you are nor going to come to agreement because you worship an exalted man, Steve worships Jesus as God the eternal Son. in all due respect, thats ok, its what you beleive. Our God, the Christian God is not a solitude. he is three in perfect relationship with one another. Our family is modeled in this oneness.

 

[KathleenGee]

And the Catholic Catechism is very clear in defining all sins that oppose the 10 commandments.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for your reply. The quotes and explanations you have given are interesting, but have hidden meanings and do not fully explain the historical doctrine, and almost seem designed to hide it. Firstly, the Catechism quotes do not properly explain the historical position. The Catechism has not always been the same. It has changed and modified over the years. But the historical position has been that man is actually guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional justification of infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty because not because of his own sins, but because of the Original Sin. Baptism is required in order to remit that Original Sin. Have a look at this link to see the theological justification for this. The quote from the Catechism has been modified hide this doctrine; but still does not completely cover it up. It does still teach that doctrine in a veiled way. Take a closer look at your own quote:

In other words, it is still a sin (attributed to you) though not committed by you. It is contracted but not committed! So what is that supposed to mean? My reading of it is that it is still regarded as a sin attributed to you, even if you had never committed that sin (or any other sin). So the Catechism still teaches that doctrine, but in a hidden and veiled way.

Your own explanation is also somewhat telling. You state:

Are you implying that we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to? That appears to be what you are saying, and I would not agree with that. The fact that our weaknesses causes all of us at some points in our lives to sin in spite of our best efforts, does not mean that we have no choice but to sin. There is no biblical teaching that supports that doctrine.

So to sum it up, I am afraid I am still going to have to stick to what I had said with regard to the traditional or Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that a man is guilty because of the original sin. I did not say that the sin originates from commission. It comes from contraction, according to the express teaching of the Catechism! The sin of Adam is attributed to the fallen man, so that he is considered guilty because of that sin, even though he has not committed that sin himself. That is still the Catholic teaching, and is still manifest in the Catechism, even though they try their best to hide it.

As far as I am concerned, that aspect of the doctrine is settled. I don’t think you can prove otherwise. The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

The idea of OS is that, while Adam’s descendants are not guilty of committing the sin, they have, indeed, inherited the state-inherited a change. IOW, the moral evil we’re witness to and that we commit ourselves in this world wasn’t “meant to be”- and it is not to be taken for granted that such a state was intended for man, even though it can appear natural enough from our perspective.

OS is an offense against nature-against the very nature God created in man-and so an offense against Him. The central aspect of the sin is that creation-in the form of mankind-is separated from or turned away from God. This is the state of our birth (and not the original state of innocence, i.e. Adam & Eve’s original state), this is a harmful disorder, this is what God seeks to reconcile and is the reason for the Redemption. We need to be saved from our own continuation of the OS-from our own obstinate rejection of the Spirit who seeks to reside within and guide our lives.

 

[KathleenGee]

Discussing original sin is difficult because it also draws on the presence of suffering and tragedy in this world. How many times do we see good people dying from natural calamities?

CC309. If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and the good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin, and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments, and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

CC312. In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you,” said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God…You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.” From the greatest moral evil ever committed – the rejection and murder of God’s only Son, caused by the sins of all men – God, by his grace that “abounded all the more”, brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all of that, evil never becomes a good.

CC314: We firmly believe that God is the master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face”, will we fully know the ways which – even through the dramas of evil and sin – God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.

CC324: …God would not allow evil if He did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

 

[zerinus]

The idea of OS is that, while Adam’s descendants are not guilty of committing the sin, they have, indeed, inherited the state-inherited a change. IOW, the moral evil we’re witness to and that we commit ourselves in this world wasn’t “meant to be”- and it is not to be taken for granted that such a state was intended for man, even though it can appear natural enough from our perspective.

OS is an offense against nature-against the very nature God created in man-and so an offense against Him. The central aspect of the sin is that creation-in the form of mankind-is separated from or turned away from God. This is the state of our birth (and not the original state of innocence, i.e. Adam & Eve’s original state), this is a harmful disorder, this is what God seeks to reconcile and is the reason for the Redemption. We need to be saved from our own continuation of the OS-from our own obstinate rejection of the Spirit who seeks to reside within and guide our lives.

Thank you for your comments, but you have not addressed the specific points I had raised. Steve did a better job of that than you are doing.

 

[SteveVH]

Okay, SteveVH; I have read through this thread, and I find that all the questions you are raising have already been answered. Your reasoning is plainly illogical and inconsistent, and you are trying to win an unwinnable argument by sounding belligerent; and I am not going to waste time on that. Suffice it to say that Jesus inherited all the consequences of the original sin like the rest of us; but being divine had the greater ability to resist Satan and overcome him, as suggested in this scripture:

Mark 3:

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Satan is strong, stronger than we are; but Jesus was stronger; therefore He was able to fight with and overcome him, or bind him, which is another way of saying, not yielding to his temptations. That is how He was able to remain completely without sin, which none of us have been able to do.

Zerinus, do not confuse resolve with belligerence. Your very idea of the nature of Jesus Christ as an exalted man impedes your understanding and prevents you from grasping the truth. The Mormon position that God placed Adam in an impossible situation, actually causing him to disobey God for the sake of Eve, rather than remaining obedient, again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purity, holiness, and justice of God.

God’s creation was perfect, He saw all that He had made and said it was “very good”. Man lived in a state of innocence (not naivety) and justice. He walked with God and God gave man free will that man might choose to love Him. Instead, man chose to disobey Him. After this initial act of disobedience, all of mankind was subject to its consequences. The world changed dramatically and man, left to his own devices, was lost and would now suffer, not only physical death but spiritual death. But God remained faithful and His love for mankind caused him to give His only Son, who had been with Him from eternity, so that we may be saved from sin and its consequences, most importantly, spiritual death. Man, in his fallen state, committed theocide, the greatest crime in human history. The creature killed the Creator. In return, this incredible, loving God, in the state of complete and utter innocence, took all of our sins upon Himself and nailed them to the cross. He defeated death that we might live. Where Adam disobeyed God, Jesus remained obedient to His Father. Jesus is the antithesis of Adam.

Your base beliefs about the the nature of man and the nature of God prevent you from understanding this truth. You have a difficult time distinuishing between the Creator and the created. We will never be the Creator, even though He humbled himself to become one of us; as we were originally created to be, not in our fallen state. Christ, being the Almighty God and Creator, could never inherit a fallen state any more than oil can mix with water. This is where you stumble. God was never as we now are. And even though we will live and share in God’s divine life, we will always be creatures and He will always be the Creator. The first lie ever told to man is alive and well today. I caution you not to fall for it.