Original sin fallout doesn’t seem fair

[spiritflower9]

I’m going through RCIA and am having some issues with the doctrine of original sin. I understand the concept that Adam was seen as our representative and since he failed we inherit separation from God and a corrupt nature is sort of like in our DNA at birth like a disease. We need baptism to help mitigate this nature.
What I don’t understand is this: It doesn’t seem fair that we inherit a corrupt nature that makes us more likely to turn away from God than even Adam & Eve. It’s like setting us up to fail. A neutral nature makes more sense. Also I have trouble seeing how it is fair that we all have to suffer for what another person did. If I had a son who committed a crime, I don’t punish my grandson for that crime also.

I am really struggling with this, especially coming from an atheist background.

 

[ChunkMonk]

It was not God who made us this way, the corruption of our nature is the result of our own sin. If you put sugar in your gas tank, you don’t blame the manufacturer when car experiences issues.

We can only given what we have. Adam and Eve did not have perfect natures anymore so they could not give us anything but an imperfect nature. Only God can fix us, and He does, through baptism and the sacrifice of Christ. There just isn’t any other way to do it. It is not like we are born with a perfect nature and God comes and corrupts us, we are born with the corrupted nature because we only receive what our parents can give us and they only have corrupted natures.

People suffer for the crimes of others all the time. When a person steals from me, I comitted no sin, but I still suffer.

 

[Vico]

I’m going through RCIA and am having some issues with the doctrine of original sin. I understand the concept that Adam was seen as our representative and since he failed we inherit separation from God and a corrupt nature is sort of like in our DNA at birth like a disease. We need baptism to help mitigate this nature.
What I don’t understand is this: It doesn’t seem fair that we inherit a corrupt nature that makes us more likely to turn away from God than even Adam & Eve. It’s like setting us up to fail. A neutral nature makes more sense. Also I have trouble seeing how it is fair that we all have to suffer for what another person did. If I had a son who committed a crime, I don’t punish my grandson for that crime also.

I am really struggling with this, especially coming from an atheist background.

So God created mankind and Adam and Eve were constituted with original justice, but that was not by nature, but by supernatural grace and preternatural gifts. When they lost them, they were not able to give them to their descendants, however it is not unfair for God is not unfair and we did not have a right to those gifts. Recall the parable of the workers in the vineyard:

Matthew 20:

1 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and he said to them,

‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’

5 So they went off. [And] he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. 6 Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them,

‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’

7 They answered,

‘Because no one has hired us.’

He said to them,

‘You too go into my vineyard.’

8 [c]When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,

‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’

9 When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. 10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying,

‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’

13 He said to one of them in reply,

‘My friend, I am not cheating you.[d] Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 [e]Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? 15 [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’

16 [f]Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I think of original sin as being something like pollution in the world.

When a baby is born in an area with lots of smog, her lungs start to take in all that pollution even though she’s never smoked or done anything harmful.

In the same way, when that baby is born into a sinful world, she is affected by it even though she’s never sinned herself. Sin affects her in the same way pollution affects her.

 

[spiritflower9]

So everything is cause and effect and we need help to repair things.
But what about people who lived before Jesus in Central America or China who didn’t have a way to sanctify themselves through animal sacrifice or even now after Jesus who haven’t heard of him or who haven’t been baptized? They didn’t/don’t have access to the way to repair what is damaged.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Catechism sections 1258 through 1261 cover various ways in which an unbaptized person may still achieve salvation.
Those born before Jesus’ time or in some place where they were unaware of Him or baptism would fall in the category of CCC 1260, as they had no way of knowing baptism was needed.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

 

[spiritflower9]

Thank you for your answer. It seems sometimes that the message of salvation and the story of the bible is very region specific and I have trouble sometimes understanding why it was so focused on one area when there were people living all over the world in ancient times.

I accidentally deleted the post you replied to which was:

So everything is cause and effect and we need help to repair things.
But what about people who lived before Jesus in Central America or China who didn’t have a way to sanctify themselves through animal sacrifice or even now after Jesus who haven’t heard of him or who haven’t been baptized? They didn’t/don’t have access to the way to repair what is damaged.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Even when you got past ancient times, it took many centuries for missionaries to reach all peoples of the world, such as Native Americans, and people in Japan, etc . As long as they were ignorant of Christian faith, they could still fall under 1260 and have the possibility of salvation without baptism.

 

[De_Maria]

I am really struggling with this, especially coming from an atheist background.

Since I’m from an atheist background also, maybe I can be of assistance.

I’m going through RCIA and am having some issues with the doctrine of original sin.

Ok.

I understand the concept that Adam was seen as our representative

Hm? Our forefather.

and since he failed we inherit separation from God and a corrupt nature is sort of like in our DNA at birth like a disease.

Yes.

We need baptism to help mitigate this nature.

Baptism does a bit more than mitigate.

CCC#1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

What I don’t understand is this: It doesn’t seem fair that we inherit a corrupt nature that makes us more likely to turn away from God than even Adam & Eve.

Do you mean, Adam and Eve after the Fall? Because Adam and Eve had Original Justice before the Fall. It took a great deal of conniving by the Enemy for them to commit the Original Sin.

It’s like setting us up to fail.

This is where faith in God comes in.

A neutral nature makes more sense.

That’s probably another way that the Catholic Doctrine could be described. The Protestant doctrine describing the same situation is “Total Depravity”. So, “Total Depravity” vs “Fallen nature”.

Also I have trouble seeing how it is fair that we all have to suffer for what another person did. If I had a son who committed a crime, I don’t punish my grandson for that crime also.

Well, let’s see. I used to own a beautiful red flyer wagon when I was a kid. I destroyed it. My kids never inherited it. Nor will their children get to use it.

Do you get my drift?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Thank you for your answer. It seems sometimes that the message of salvation and the story of the bible is very region specific and I have trouble sometimes understanding why it was so focused on one area when there were people living all over the world in ancient times.

For this, you’ll have to delve into Scripture. One of the things you’ll notice as you read, is that the pagans, are not unaware of God. For example, Abraham, the first Hebrew to turn back to God after the Flood, had a run in with a pagan king many centuries before Moses was born. Here’s the thing that surprised me:

Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him: You are about to die because of the woman you have taken, for she has a husband. 4 Abimelech, who had not approached her, said: “O Lord, would you kill an innocent man?

Notice how this pagan king seems to recognize God. He even calls Him, Lord and seems very comfortable in negotiating with God. You’ll find these sorts of things scattered here and there in the Old Testament. It tells me that God was speaking to the entire world. But those people did not keep a record of their interaction with God, because in the end, they did not care to follow God’s laws.

But what about people who lived before Jesus in Central America or China who didn’t have a way to sanctify themselves through animal sacrifice or even now after Jesus who haven’t heard of him or who haven’t been baptized? They didn’t/don’t have access to the way to repair what is damaged.

The Ten Commandments, which God wrote on a stone for the benefit of the Israelites, are key to understanding the Word of God.

They are written on a stone as a metaphor. Because God has written those commandments on every man’s heart.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Any human being who follows his conscience, can be saved.

Acts 10eter’s Speech. 34 Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. 35 Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.

I hope that helps.

 

[spiritflower9]

Your answer is extremely helpful. Thank you for taking the time to answer. It really has surprised me how helpful and knowledgeable people like you have been in answering my difficult questions

 

[fhansen]

I’m going through RCIA and am having some issues with the doctrine of original sin. I understand the concept that Adam was seen as our representative and since he failed we inherit separation from God and a corrupt nature is sort of like in our DNA at birth like a disease. We need baptism to help mitigate this nature.
What I don’t understand is this: It doesn’t seem fair that we inherit a corrupt nature that makes us more likely to turn away from God than even Adam & Eve. It’s like setting us up to fail. A neutral nature makes more sense. Also I have trouble seeing how it is fair that we all have to suffer for what another person did. If I had a son who committed a crime, I don’t punish my grandson for that crime also.

I am really struggling with this, especially coming from an atheist background.

We do start with a more or less neutral nature, faced with the same basic choice as Adam and Eve: life over death, good over evil, God over no God. Here, in this very non-Edenic world, we actually have an advantage; we get to see first-hand the results of their sin, of their disobedience. We know evil, and by contrast good; we experience both daily, directly, viscerally in this life, and so the choice should become more obvious, especially when combined with revelation/knowledge and grace.

 

[Shakuhachi]

My opinion:

Consider the fact that we came from dust. Inert, lifeless, dark, material.

Through the grace of God we somehow became conscious. And not us alone but all that lives and has some form of at least rudimentary awareness. That step alone is a giant leap. the next step is the moral awareness, that we not only live and move and have effect on others but those effects have a moral dimension and value. This is where because we are still dragged down by our material sluggishness, we often make choices that are self centered. These decisions used to keep us alive and sometimes still do but they fail to acknowledge our deeper spiritual nature and connection to others. This is sin. It goes back to the dawn of human moral awareness. It has consequences.

Redemption is all about living in the full truth of our dimension. No one more than Jesus provided the best example of what that could look like.

 

[edwest211]

Deuteronomy 30:15

New International Version
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.

New Living Translation
"Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between life and death, between prosperity and disaster.

English Standard Version
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.

 

[Joe_5859]

You have already received some great answers. I understand why this can be difficult to understand and indeed the mystery of Original Sin is something we will never fully understand. I recall in my earlier years thinking we really got the short end of the stick having to pay for what Adam and Eve did. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

What helps me is to recognize our connection as one human family. This connection that causes us to share in Adam’s sin is the very same connection that allows us to share in the redemptive act of Christ. Talk about unfair! I continually sin and turn my back on God, and yet I have but to turn back again and the passion of Christ enables me to get to heaven anyway. Thanks be to God that life is not fair and I do not get what I deserve!

 

[dchezik]

About original sin and our nature: What is “original sin”? “Sin is any deliberate action, attitude, or thought that goes against God.” “Original sin” is the first instance of that."
( See Ogden Nash;s sins of commission and omission.) It’s fabricated – maybe “nonsense” would be a better description.

 The definition of a sin is hopelessly muddled.  How can you avoid doing something when it isn't clear what it is exactly?  Here: "It is a crime against God if you confefe!." "Repent of your confefe or suffer in the fires of hell or maybe just the Northwest."

“Original sin” is simply the carrying out of our biological and psychological desires that are frowned upon by society.

 

[Vico]

About original sin and our nature: What is “original sin”? … “Original sin” is simply the carrying out of our biological and psychological desires that are frowned upon by society.

The Catechism explains precisely that original sin is only sin in an analogical sense:

Catechism

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Also I have trouble seeing how it is fair that we all have to suffer for what another person did.

Christ was innocent of all sin and suffered for each human being. When I consider that, my little suffering pales.

 

[SonofJoseph]

I’m not sure if someone already mentioned this, but in the Exultet, which we sing at the Easter Vigil Mass, we say “Oh happy fault of Adam” and the hymn continues (paraphrasing now a word or two) “that merited for us so wonderful a Redeemer!” We call “original sin” a “happy fault” because of the love God has and continues to show us over all of history. Is it because of our fallen nature that we get to participate so willingly in God’s salvific plan for us all. It is because of our fallen nature that God seeks each one of us out and tells us to “Follow Me.”

 

[edwest211]

Definitely not. It is a spiritual condition that requires spiritual help, such as Baptism.