Original Sin question

  • Thread starter Thread starter laocmo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
This is exactly what the Hebrew Scriptures mean by noting the sins of the father are visited upon his children. Not that the children inherit their father’s sins at birth but that the consequences of the father’s sinful behavior can have a negative effect on his children’s behavior by means of the way the father raises them. According to Judaism, our sins are our own.
Click to expand...
According to Catholicism, too. 👍
 
guanophore said:
The consequences to Adam with regard to his relationship to the land is a very good descripton of the struggles faced by farmers.😃
Click to expand...
Yes, understandable, but I was speaking of the pain God inflicted upon Eve and Eve alone, and as far as I read, no one gave an answer/suggestion to what extra pain God inflicted upon Adam.

Thanks.
 
simpleas said:
No because we inherit Original sin. Everyone born today has the stain of original sin and therefore would need to be baptised.
Click to expand...
This is a nonsequitur, simple.

What you say above is true, but it does not follow from my post.
 
meltzerboy said:
This is exactly what the Hebrew Scriptures mean by noting the sins of the father are visited upon his children. Not that the children inherit their father’s sins at birth but that the consequences of the father’s sinful behavior can have a negative effect on his children’s behavior by means of the way the father raises them. According to Judaism, our sins are our own.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is what we Christians mean when we think about original sin: we suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but are not personally culpable for his sin.

All of this talk of us being guilty of Adam’s sin seems to be motivated by polemics, the historical influence of Jansenism on French and Irish and American theologians, and the use of older translations of the Council of Trent (where the word translated as guilt had multiple senses at the time of translation). I don’t even think it’s far to argue that St. Augustine clearly taught it.

Church teaching is not guilty of “original guilt!”

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Original sin is very hard to comprehend but precisely understandable in the context of theology.
 
Bible
grannymh said:
This free act of disobedience also destroyed the “suspension of material pain and decomposing death.” Adam and Eve’s material anatomy returned to the normality of the material world. The “suspension” of ordinary characteristics of the material nature was removed.
Click to expand...
This is clearly what the bible does NOT say. There is no mistaking that God is not ‘resuming normal service’. He is going to INCREASE her pain. There is no way to read that she is painless and will then, because of sin, suffer pain. He is going to greatly MULTIPLY her pain. Pain must exist in the first instance and rather than God turning it back on, actually, as it specifically says, increases it.

‘To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth…’

Notwithstanding that having no pain at all is incredibly life threatening. I would guarantee that they wouldn’t last a few weeks in that condition. Unless you want to argue that God made sure they didn’t fall over, stand on anything sharp, poke themselves in the eye.

Let’s face it, the story of one actual man and one actual woman, searching for knowledge, serpents, apples…the whole box and dice is a nice story, but you keep needing to add to it and ask that everyone accept it all as credible. It doesn’t work as a metaphor. To try to convince us that it’s actually true…well, it’s something of a struggle, isn’t it.
 
PRmerger said:
This is a nonsequitur, simple.

What you say above is true, but it does not follow from my post.
Click to expand...
We inherit original sin, we aren’t just affected by it? It’s inherited genetically.

I don’t think the Jewish faith believes we inherit sin genetically, but can be affected by others sin. I could be wrong.
 
simpleas said:
We inherit original sin, we aren’t just affected by it? It’s inherited genetically.

I don’t think the Jewish faith believes we inherit sin genetically, but can be affected by others sin. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by genetic? I think everyone can agree that wrong behaviour can be handed down in families, but I don’t think Christians or Jews believe that it is necessarily passed down in DNA. I’m not an expert in genetics, so I guess bad behavior can be passed, but I don’t know the extent, and man always has the freedom.to change his habits with the help of God’s grace anyway.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Bradski said:
Let’s face it, the story of one actual man and one actual woman, searching for knowledge, serpents, apples…the whole box and dice is a nice story, but you keep needing to add to it and ask that everyone accept it all as credible. It doesn’t work as a metaphor. To try to convince us that it’s actually true…well, it’s something of a struggle, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Apples?

I’m not sure what’s more egregiously wrong: having a discussion with someone who has a fundamentalist lens while reading the Bible, or having a discussion about Genesis with someone who hasn’t read it in a very, very long time.

(Or, perhaps, the worst is: having a discussion with someone who hasn’t read Genesis in a very, very long time who also approaches it with that fundamentalist lens?) 😛

At any rate, Bradski, there is NO APPLE in Genesis.

I think this demonstrates that someone has simply believed what he’s read about the kerygma, without actually knowing what the kerygma is.
 
simpleas said:
We inherit original sin, we aren’t just affected by it? It’s inherited genetically.

I don’t think the Jewish faith believes we inherit sin genetically, but can be affected by others sin. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Original Sin is NOT THE GUILT of Adam.

It is a deprivation of the original grace we were destined to receive.
 
PRmerger said:
Apples?

I’m not sure what’s more egregiously wrong: having a discussion with someone who has a fundamentalist lens while reading the Bible, or having a discussion about Genesis with someone who hasn’t read it in a very, very long time.

(Or, perhaps, the worst is: having a discussion with someone who hasn’t read Genesis in a very, very long time who also approaches it with that fundamentalist lens?) 😛

At any rate, Bradski, there is NO APPLE in Genesis.

I think this demonstrates that someone has simply believed what he’s read about the kerygma, without actually knowing what the kerygma is.
Click to expand...
I agree with Mr. Bradski: I think it is difficult to create a satisfactory synthesis between tradition interpretations of Genesis and the current theories of evolutionary biology (and there are many different ones, some which correspond to modern biology more than others). Synthesis does exist, and many of them are sound, but they aren’t very convincing.

I think some theories in evolutionary biology are informed by false philosophy (modern materialism mostly), but still, when that junk is thrown out, it is still weird to think that Adam and Eve’s children procreated with a human without rationality. Quite honestly, I’m much expecting that these theories, like most theories in biology and the sciences, will be revised in time, and will correspond more effectively to the Church’s teaching as we grow more knowledgeable. It’s not as if we have the ability to go back in time to check our theories, so I expect there might always be tension between the two approaches 🤷

I believe in the Genesis story because many of the other teachings of the Church are proved correct, and so, if this doctine here is not directly contradicted by the evidence (which it isn’t), I can accept that these stories are true on the Church’s authority, who has proved Herself correct in so many other matters it’s overwhelming. Furthermore, the only other plausible interpretations of the fossil data are materialist, which cannot explain man’s soul, and since we know about the soul in more certainty than the evolutionary origins of the body, a fortiori, the materialist account is utterly unpersuasive.

First Vatican Council garentees that the faith is rational, not that we will figure out those reasons exactly. St. Thomas’ philosophy is a general outline of a philosophy that explains all things, but as we follow his thoughts, we find that the more we know, the more there is to know.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
I think some theories in evolutionary biology are informed by false philosophy (modern materialism mostly), but still, when that junk is thrown out, it is still weird to think that Adam and Eve’s children procreated with a human without rationality.
Click to expand...
Huh?

You are saying this is what must be believed to reconcile Catholic teaching with evolution?

:confused:
 
Lucretius said:
Yes. This is what we Christians mean when we think about original sin: we suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but are not personally culpable for his sin.

All of this talk of us being guilty of Adam’s sin seems to be motivated by polemics, the historical influence of Jansenism on French and Irish and American theologians, and the use of older translations of the Council of Trent (where the word translated as guilt had multiple senses at the time of translation). I don’t even think it’s far to argue that St. Augustine clearly taught it.

Church teaching is not guilty of “original guilt!”

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly! 👍
 
PRmerger said:
Huh?

You are saying this is what must be believed to reconcile Catholic teaching with evolution?

:confused:
Click to expand...
I used that common explaination as an example of some problems with current synthesis. If you have a better, sound, and more persuasive one, I’d love to hear it 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
PRmerger said:
Apples?

I’m not sure what’s more egregiously wrong: having a discussion with someone who has a fundamentalist lens while reading the Bible, or having a discussion about Genesis with someone who hasn’t read it in a very, very long time.

(Or, perhaps, the worst is: having a discussion with someone who hasn’t read Genesis in a very, very long time who also approaches it with that fundamentalist lens?) 😛

At any rate, Bradski, there is NO APPLE in Genesis.

I think this demonstrates that someone has simply believed what he’s read about the kerygma, without actually knowing what the kerygma is.
Click to expand...
It certainly was a fundamentalist approach that I was describing. And you say it like it’s a bad thing. But it is fundamental to your religion, so don’t shy from the word. As far as someone in my position is concerned, these stories are in the same league as arks and sailor swallowing fish. And big deal, it actually doesn’t say apples. But it actually doesn’t say what Granny posted either.

The story is being stretched and moulded depending on whoever is posting. But that’s the benefit for Catholics. It can mean what you want it to mean. You can even treat it as two actuall people and that’s fine. You can say that there was no death and that’s fine. You can say we inherited the sin. And that’s fine.

There are as many interpretations as there are people interpreting it. And almost all of them are what I would class as being fundamentalist in approach.

And what’s with men dominating women? It is, by the very definition of the circumstance, a bad thing. It was a punishment. If you need to believe in original sin, then you have to accept that God punished Adam and Eve. And one of Eve’s punishments was to be ruled over by her old man. As, and I repeat this, as a punishment.

Someone should explain this to my wife. She just absolutely flat out refused to go down the bottle shop and get me a case of beer. Damn her Anglican upbringing.
 
Lucretius said:
I used that common explaination as an example of some problems with current synthesis. If you have a better, sound, and more persuasive one, I’d love to hear it 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
How about Adam and Eve had many, many children, and each of their children procreated with another human being?
 
PRmerger said:
How about Adam and Eve had many, many children, and each of their children procreated with another human being?
Click to expand...
Then we have to deal with the natural law’s prohibition on Incest.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Bradski said:
It certainly was a fundamentalist approach that I was describing. And you say it like it’s a bad thing. But it is fundamental to your religion, so don’t shy from the word.
Click to expand...
Oh, please don’t conflate a fundamentalist lens with “fundamental to your religion”.

They are cognates, true, but ought not be fused here.
As far as someone in my position is concerned, these stories are in the same league as arks and sailor swallowing fish. And big deal, it actually doesn’t say apples. But it actually doesn’t say what Granny posted either.
Click to expand...
I think it just demonstrates a great unfamiliarity with what you are attempting to refute.

Best to be at least a little informed on the subject, and to have actually read the text within the past…decade? perhaps?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top