Original Sin Makes No Sense

  • Thread starter Thread starter Et_Cetera
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. What lies inside this box can be discovered in large measure at it’s origin in the garden. We inherit Adam’s sin because he was the representative of the human race. God spoke to Adam in those terms. We see this in connection with God’s pronouncment of death should he disobey, and His sentencing of death after Adam disobeyed. Because of Adam’s sin, all men “toil…sweat…and die.”

This same principle of the one representing the many also applies to the salvation of God’s people. For just as Adam’s sin is imputed to our record, Jesus righteousness is imputed to the record of those who trust in Him.(Rom. 5:19)

Therefore, if original sin makes no sense, then neither should God’s grace to the unworthy, who deserve eternal torments.
 
JohnJFarren said:
JMJ / MMM 081002 Thursday
Hey Fellows ande Girls, Sons and Daughters of God –

HOW ABOUT WE GET BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT IS ORIGINAL SIN? Adam? Eve? Garden? Serpent? Fruit?

New wine is needed … and in new wine skins!

More mature understanding of the truth in “Original Sin” … and this presented, formulated, in new and true terms.
Click to expand...
Very good idea. Here’s my two bits worth mostly taken from “Why does God permit evil?” by Dom Brunno Webb. I posted this in another thread but think it relevant to this discussion.

Why does God permit Evil (in a nutshell)

All of God’s creation is good. God created the angels and they were all good and given free will. But Lucifer of his own free will defies God - wanting to be God (pride emerges).

God creates Adam and Eve full of sanctifying grace. But like Lucifer they wanted to be God. In defying God they were in effect stating that, they, not God, are to be the arbiters of what is good or evil. And so with their own free will, in their desire to be God (because this is what the serpent promises, that they will become gods) they partake of the fruit.

If we consider Adam as being the first cell of creation, by virtue of his pride/disobedience, this loss of grace caused the cell to be deformed” (can’t think of a more appropriate word). Therefore any cell that is generated from this cell is similarly “deformed”. It becomes genetically imbedded in the human gene. From this loss of sanctifying grace issued all suffering.

So this is the Original Sin.

The suffering that ensues from this state of being “deformed” is not a punishment but a consequence of the lack of sanctifying grace. To illustrate, the nasty bump on your head that resulted from walking into a door, was not a punishment from God but a result of you walking into a door.

But, thank goodness, this is not the end of the story.

God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son.

God instead of punishing humanity and leaving them to the consequences of their folly, becomes man.

Christ’s counters Adam’s sin of pride, by humbling himself and becoming human.

Because it is man in his nature that disobeyed, God allowed man to redeem himself by becoming Man, so that man’s NO may be drowned by Man’s loud and triumphant YES to God.

God in Christ then uses suffering to conquer suffering.

Now for the magnificent part:
In the order of creation, man is below the angels, the angels being pure spirit.

By virtue of Christ’s redemption however, we become God’s children by adoption, and so become gods. By virtue of Christ then, we are elevated to status higher than the angels.

A good analogy I have always used is that of the broken vase.

A very beautiful vase was broken to pieces. To mend it the Craftsman used the finest of gold to put the pieces back together and decorated it with precious stones such that the finished product was even more beautiful than before it was broken.

Man therefore after redemption, was better than man before the fall.

And this is why we sing at Easter: “O Happy Fault , O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer”

In our lives, we see glimpses if this. But because of our fallen state, and Satan’s fallen state, there will always be suffering until we come home to God.

Suffering does not have the last word. I think this is why Christ repeatedly says: be not afraid.

As He told Julian of Norwich: All will be well. All manner of things shall be well.

God made us for glorious union with Him and Adam’s fall was not going to stop that.
 
JMJ / MMM 081007 Tuesday
Warm Greetings Et Cetera and All Others –
There are many people who cannot accept a literal understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis. These first two chapters of the Bible are very important and they contain a number of very important truths, truths that were given only to our ancestors, the Jews. Many people today cannot (not will not, cannot) accept the story as literal or as modern history.

Why? Because well established scientific facts flatly cannot agree with a literal understanding of the story. (Not all these facts are well-established. Some of them are in dispute. But in general they are well established facts.)

In a depth encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, we were reminded that many styles of writing, literary styes, comprise the library we call the Bible. Some of these styles we are quite unfamiliar with and consequently do not understand well without expert direction.

These first two chapters of Genesis were never meant to be historical in the sense that history courses are taught in our colleges and universities today. They simply are not history in our understanding of history.

A single man Adam? Looking rather like us? A single woman Eve? Looking rather like us? A paradisial garden located near the ancient Tigris and Euphrates? A real, single tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? A talking serpent that approached Eve, spoke with her, and got her to talk with Adam? No. None of these things were ever meant to be taken as literal historical facts.

This mode or style of a story was very necessary to communicate to an ancient people very important truths God wanted to share with them, a people not quite yet ready for philosophical and theological depths. But God’s truths were all there in the MEANINGS of the story.

What? Shall we lose ourselves in disputing about facts that were never meant to be facts? And lose the MEANINGS of the story?

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is not in any way opposed to what I’ve written above. As far I am aware virtually all present day Catholic theologians quite agree (a rare exception, indeed, there might be, but I find that hard to believe).

SO – the next item on the agenda would probably be to examine these important truths of God contained in or under this story of Genesis 1 and 2.

What do you think about developing this line of thought? Is there any hope here of doing that? I think there is.
Every Blessing of Jesus and Holy Spirit and Father and Mary be to everyone who reads this posting.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
JohnJFarren said:
JMJ / MMM 081007 Tuesday
Warm Greetings Et Cetera and All Others –
There are many people who cannot accept a literal understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis. These first two chapters of the Bible are very important and they contain a number of very important truths, truths that were given only to our ancestors, the Jews. Many people today cannot (not will not, cannot) accept the story as literal or as modern history.

Why? Because well established scientific facts flatly cannot agree with a literal understanding of the story. (Not all these facts are well-established. Some of them are in dispute. But in general they are well established facts.)

In a depth encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, we were reminded that many styles of writing, literary styes, comprise the library we call the Bible. Some of these styles we are quite unfamiliar with and consequently do not understand well without expert direction.

These first two chapters of Genesis were never meant to be historical in the sense that history courses are taught in our colleges and universities today. They simply are not history in our understanding of history.

A single man Adam? Looking rather like us? A single woman Eve? Looking rather like us? A paradisial garden located near the ancient Tigris and Euphrates? A real, single tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? A talking serpent that approached Eve, spoke with her, and got her to talk with Adam? No. None of these things were ever meant to be taken as literal historical facts.

This mode or style of a story was very necessary to communicate to an ancient people very important truths God wanted to share with them, a people not quite yet ready for philosophical and theological depths. But God’s truths were all there in the MEANINGS of the story.

What? Shall we lose ourselves in disputing about facts that were never meant to be facts? And lose the MEANINGS of the story?

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is not in any way opposed to what I’ve written above. As far I am aware virtually all present day Catholic theologians quite agree (a rare exception, indeed, there might be, but I find that hard to believe).

SO – the next item on the agenda would probably be to examine these important truths of God contained in or under this story of Genesis 1 and 2.

What do you think about developing this line of thought? Is there any hope here of doing that? I think there is.
Every Blessing of Jesus and Holy Spirit and Father and Mary be to everyone who reads this posting.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
Click to expand...
**A single man, Adam, who looks just like us? Why not? A single woman, Eve, who looks just like us? Why not? Homo sapiens have been around at least for 150,000 years. From what we know anthropologically, we look like they did. Neanderthals were a sub-human race and separate from our line. Bryan Sykes, in his thought-provoking book “The Seven Daughters of Eve”, is a geneticist and has compiled the recent DNA evidence which points to an actual female progenitor of the human race to which he refers to as ‘Eve’. There can be no getting around that basic fact.

We also know that prior to the last Ice Age, the area around the Tigris & Euphrates was a subtropical paradise. There were also two other rivers in the area, one dried up and found by satellite imagery, the other under the Persian Gulf, its meanderings found by underwater imagery. In fact, it is surmized that the biblical “Garden of Eden” is located under the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Theologically, Adam & Eve existed outside of time; in fact, in eternity. They were pre-figurements of Christ’s resurrected body and, as such, were beyond death.

You are correct in pointing out that the style of story writing in Genesis was very necessary to communicate to an ancient people very important truths God wanted to share with them. An example is the Tree in the Garden. Was it poisonous? No. Was there anything wrong with it? No. The only thing about it is that God told our first parents not to eat from it. Period. Did they listen? No. Hence, the spiraling downward of doing God’s Will.

As for the Serpent, who later became Satan and was a Seraph angel, could appear any way he wanted to them. The story revolved around the demonic as being crafty, sly, deceptive. The lives of the saints are filled with the appearances of demons, even taking on animal or reptile form. One could interpret the ‘story’ as just that - a story. However, the reader should have a true grasp of this area just the same. Even St. Paul says that Satan can appear as an “angel of light” which he is!

The first two chapters of Genesis is a response of the writer(s) to Babylonian pagan beliefs moreso than anything else. It answers all the questions about the belief system of the ancient Persians. It is the antithesis of these beliefs. As such, it is not history and was never meant to be.

Yes, it would be interesting to explore these trains of thought more closely than we have already. **
 
How could Adam and Eve commit original sin?

Could someone please refute this?

1.) One is not culpable for sin committed in complete ignorance.
2.) Adam and Eve were ignorant of all knowledge of good and evil.

Therefore Adam and Eve could not be held accountable for their sin.

How could they be held accountable for original sin if they were in a state of ignorance?
 
Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. They disobeyed and ate it after she had listened to the lies from the serpent (the devil).
 
pigtown said:
Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. They disobeyed and ate it after she had listened to the lies from the serpent (the devil).
Click to expand...
I know, the point i want refuting is this:

How could they be held accountable for what they had done, if they only gained knowledge of good and evil after the fall how could they know what they were doing before the fall (i.e disobaying God) was evil?
 
Pete said:
I know, the point i want refuting is this:

How could they be held accountable for what they had done, if they only gained knowledge of good and evil after the fall how could they know what they were doing before the fall (i.e disobaying God) was evil?
Click to expand...
If the Creator of Heaven and Earth, whom you knew personally and spoke with, told you not to do something, wouldn’t you, no matter how innocent, expect a repercussion if you disobeyed?

Using your logic we wouldn’t punish our young children when they disobey. It doesn’t work.
 
Adam and Eve were told, as foudnthelight said, not to eat the fruit by God, and they *were disobedient *in eating it.

Young children do not know the pain of being burnt when told not to put their hand in the fire, but (depending on their age) they know to do what they are told, even if they don’t know why.

Prior to my learning more about my Faith I respected Church teachings without knowing why I should not do certain things.
 
Fran65 said:
Adam and Eve were told, as foudnthelight said, not to eat the fruit by God, and they *were disobedient *in eating it.

Young children do not know the pain of being burnt when told not to put their hand in the fire, but (depending on their age) they know to do what they are told, even if they don’t know why.

Prior to my learning more about my Faith I respected Church teachings without knowing why I should not do certain things.
Click to expand...
But the objection is this: They would not know it was wrong if they did not know good from evil, so how could they be blamed?
 
Pete said:
I know, the point i want refuting is this:

How could they be held accountable for what they had done, if they only gained knowledge of good and evil after the fall how could they know what they were doing before the fall (i.e disobaying God) was evil?
Click to expand...
I must echo foundthelight’s answer: Because they were told.

If a museum curator tells you “Don’t touch the ancient manuscript,” and you touch it and it crumbles, you would still be guilty of its destruction whether or not you knew it would crumble because you had been told not to touch it.
foundthelight said:
If the Creator of Heaven and Earth, whom you knew personally and spoke with, told you not to do something, wouldn’t you, no matter how innocent, expect a repercussion if you disobeyed?

Using your logic we wouldn’t punish our young children when they disobey. It doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
True!!
Fran65 said:
Adam and Eve were told, as foudnthelight said, not to eat the fruit by God, and they *were disobedient *in eating it.

Young children do not know the pain of being burnt when told not to put their hand in the fire, but (depending on their age) they know to do what they are told, even if they don’t know why.

Prior to my learning more about my Faith I respected Church teachings without knowing why I should not do certain things.
Click to expand...
True!!

Adam and Eve had an incredible, personal, walk-in-the-Garden relationship with the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Whom we can assume they knew created them from nothing. He could have given them a long list of rules, but only gave them one - and they disobeyed.

Their guilt did not come from ignorance of good or evil, it came from disobedience.
 
One theory I’ve heard is that in this context, to ‘know’ evil is used in the same fashion as Mary’s ‘know’ man.

On an intelectual level, they knew the difference between good and evil in much the same way Mary knew the difference between men and women. What they lacked was practical, hands on experience. They knew it was possible to choose evil, but they had never done so.

So the devil convinced them to give it a try…
 
GemmaRose said:
I must echo foundthelight’s answer: Because they were told.

If a museum curator tells you “Don’t touch the ancient manuscript,” and you touch it and it crumbles, you would still be guilty of its destruction whether or not you knew it would crumble because you had been told not to touch it.

True!!

True!!

Adam and Eve had an incredible, personal, walk-in-the-Garden relationship with the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Whom we can assume they knew created them from nothing. He could have given them a long list of rules, but only gave them one - and they disobeyed.

Their guilt did not come from ignorance of good or evil, it came from disobedience.
Click to expand...
The point is that the Church teaches that you are not culpable if you sin in ignorance.
 
Pete said:
But the objection is this: They would not know it was wrong if they did not know good from evil, so how could they be blamed?
Click to expand...
Firstly - what do you think the ‘knowledge of Good and Evil’ is? There are different levels of knowledge. A child can be taught the basics of sex ed. Until they have sex you probably wouldn’t say they really know, but they certainly know enough that they’d be morally culpable if they had unprotected sex or something.

Same with evil - there’s theoretical knowledge and experiential knowlege. You may just have to reason backwards here - the fact that God punished them hints that it’s a certain TYPE of knowledge we’re talking about. Enough to understand that it’s wrong and make them culpable for what they did, but prior to eating of the tree not the full knowledge that comes from experience.

On the other hand - so what if they weren’t culpable? If you think of the episode as being similar to a child innocently putting its hand on a hot iron and getting burned, well that child may not be morally culpable for the act at all, but they certainly suffer consequences - they get burned and may well carry a big old disfiguring scar for the rest of their lives. So exposure, even the exposure of an innocent, to evil may have this sort of disfiguring effect on the soul.
 
Et_Cetera said:
How can people be held accountable for an act that they did not commit? It seems to imply that humans are inherently bad and weak.
Click to expand...
It’s a mythical, Judeo-Christian explanation of our inherent, moral weaknesses, many of which really stem from our lower instincts as creatures of Nature. I view it as yet another reminder of the dire need to follow Christ in my life-long struggle to overcome the bestial side of my being.
 
LilyM said:
If you think of the episode as being similar to a child innocently putting its hand on a hot iron and getting burned, well that child may not be morally culpable for the act at all, but they certainly suffer consequences - they get burned and may well carry a big old disfiguring scar for the rest of their lives. So exposure, even the exposure of an innocent, to evil may have this sort of disfiguring effect on the soul.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Pete said:
But the objection is this: They would not know it was wrong if they did not know good from evil, so how could they be blamed?
Click to expand...
You are correct in stating that the consequences were unknown but they knew that God told them not to eat of the tree. The serpent mentioned that they would not die thus initiating the idea that death could be a possible outcome. And, as is still taught today, evil still presents itself whether or not one is culpable for the action. In this case, Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s directions and the consequences were evil. Sin is the choosing of our will over God’s will. It still presents itself today. Keep in mind that evil is a consequence not an action or substance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top