Original Sin

[kompaz]

As I see it, the burden is on you to produce something to support you ‘truly unique view’ that Adam did not know he was breaking God’s command of not eating the fruit when he, in fact, did eat it.

You are misrepresenting my position.

Simply stated, Adam realized he had done wrong after he ate the fruit and he went and hid from God (as did Eve).

You are actually proving my point.

Yes, Adam knew he was disobeying God. However, he did not recognize disobedience as wrong prior to eating the fruit. It was only after he ate the fruit! That’s the crux of the problem. It’s quite simple really. In his subjective view, there was no right or wrong, no good or evil. Until he ate that fruit. Only then he saw that his past action was wrong. Also, he was created without inherent obedience to God; instead, God appealed to his self-preservation instinct (do not eat, or you will die). The command was not: “Do not disobey me, or else…”, it was “Do not eat, or else…”.

The text is quite explicit that Adam was created without an inherent sense of morality, and acquired it only after eating the fruit. Cf.: After eating the fruit he realizes, that he is naked, and makes himself a clothing of leaves. But obviously, he was also naked before that, and he had no problem with it!

Next thing, he hides from God. When God asks him why, does he say, “Because I have disobeyed you?” No, he says “Because I am naked”. Is he lying? No, because he admits to eating the fruit immediately after. So it doesn’t look like he was feeling bad about what he did. It looks like he realized the magnitude of his wrongdoing only after God kicks him out of Eden!

 

[grannymh]

You are misrepresenting my position.

You are actually proving my point.

Yes, Adam knew he was disobeying God. However, he did not recognize disobedience as wrong prior to eating the fruit. It was only after he ate the fruit! That’s the crux of the problem. It’s quite simple really. In his subjective view, there was no right or wrong, no good or evil. Until he ate that fruit. Only then he saw that his past action was wrong. Also, he was created without inherent obedience to God; instead, God appealed to his self-preservation instinct (do not eat, or you will die). The command was not: “Do not disobey me, or else…”, it was “Do not eat, or else…”.

The text is quite explicit that Adam was created without an inherent sense of morality, and acquired it only after eating the fruit. Cf.: After eating the fruit he realizes, that he is naked, and makes himself a clothing of leaves. But obviously, he was also naked before that, and he had no problem with it!

Next thing, he hides from God. When God asks him why, does he say, “Because I have disobeyed you?” No, he says “Because I am naked”. Is he lying? No, because he admits to eating the fruit immediately after. So it doesn’t look like he was feeling bad about what he did. It looks like he realized the magnitude of his wrongdoing only after God kicks him out of Eden!

All this and previous posts, are very interesting from one’s own personal point of view. Thank you.

The Catholic Church draws in knowledge from many sources, not just a private interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. For example, there is a huge difference between the Creator and His creation. What is essential to understanding the first three chapters of Genesis is a common sense understanding of the relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, His creature.

It should be obvious from the start that God and Adam are not equal beings. There are insurmountable limits between God, a transcendent Pure Spirit and Adam whose nature unites *both *the material world and the spiritual world. Adam needs to respect these limits so that he can live in God’s friendship. The first three chapters of Genesis explain how Adam lived in God’s friendship and what happened when he scorned God’s friendship.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

If I misrepresented you position, then just clarify what is misrepresented - this is how items are resolved,

And, really, Kompaz, the next time you are interested in proving someone else’s point - don’t hold back…feel free. Now, it seems like we need at least one definition.

**re·al·ize    [ree-uh-lahyz] Show IPA verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing. verb (used with object)

1. to grasp or understand clearly.
   **2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
2. to bring vividly to the mind. ****
3. to convert into cash or money: to realize securities.
4. to obtain as a profit or income for oneself by trade, labor, or investment.

So, let’s see how this applies - especially in light of what you are claiming.

You are misrepresenting my position.

You are actually proving my point.

Yes, Adam knew he was disobeying God. However, he did not recognize disobedience as wrong prior to eating the fruit. It was only after he ate the fruit! That’s the crux of the problem. It’s quite simple really. In his subjective view, there was no right or wrong, no good or evil. Until he ate that fruit. Only then he saw that his past action was wrong. Also, he was created without inherent obedience to God; instead, God appealed to his self-preservation instinct (do not eat, or you will die). The command was not: “Do not disobey me, or else…”, it was “Do not eat, or else…”.

Several items need to addressed. The first is that you have yet to offer any citation or link that supports your particular view. My guess that after repeated requests for such a link, none actually exists. Now, if you have something, please produce it. If not, just continue as you are doing.

When one knows they are disobeying, it means that they know the law, they know what it is they are to do or not do - and, they choose to disregard the law and do their own will. So, when you tell me that “…Adam knew he was disobeying God…” you are agreeing with what I have said. Notice, at no time does the consequence of this disobedience have to enter into the mental calculation. Truly, the consequences are secondary to the act of disobedience. As an analogy, a small child may be told not to play with knives. He continues to do this - and sticks the point of the knife into an electrical socket! No one was really anticipating that type of consequence - but, for those who chose to disobey, no one say that a certain consequence won’t happen. All you do is wait to see what happens as a result of the initial act of disobedience.

In my opinion, you are simply ignoring the obvious when you say, " In his subjective view, there was no right or wrong, no good or evil. Until he ate that fruit. Only then he saw that his past action was wrong." What is going on is prior knowledge that a certain action is wrong - Adam was told not to do something - and he chose to do it. Disobedience to God is always wrong - just like obedience is always right. This reality is seen throughout the entire Bible. Note, God had a vert close relationship with Adam - so, claiming God had to say, “If you do this, then all of these things will happen”

Here’s a heads-up … there are a lot of statements about what a really bad place Hell is - but, based on the way you are arguing, I would guess descriptions like, “Where the worm dies not” or “Where there will be the weeping and gnashing of teeth” are vague and do not include ‘full disclosure’ you seem to be demanding. Now, this is just a hunch - but, my idea is that Hell is far worse then anyone has imagined - no one has yet to imagine what eternity is like.

The text is quite explicit that Adam was created without an inherent sense of morality, and acquired it only after eating the fruit. Cf.: After eating the fruit he realizes, that he is naked, and makes himself a clothing of leaves. But obviously, he was also naked before that, and he had no problem with it!

Adam was created with perfect gifts, along with a Free Will. Nakedness was not a problem before Adam’s disobedience - but, we have one of those unplanned consequences. My guess is that Adam and Eve were totally overwhelmed by the enormity of their disobedience - and, you can only say one thing at a time… and nakedness was something that was probably the most immediately obvious.

Next thing, he hides from God. When God asks him why, does he say, “Because I have disobeyed you?” No, he says “Because I am naked”. Is he lying? No, because he admits to eating the fruit immediately after. So it doesn’t look like he was feeling bad about what he did. It looks like he realized the magnitude of his wrongdoing only after God kicks him out of Eden!

One of the more interesting things about this initial disobedience is the uniform view taken by the Scripture writers and the Early Church Fathers. Here is an interesting link from a Protestant source: piercedhearts.org/purity_heart_morality/original_sin_lee.htm There really is a lot of evidence that Adam knew he was breaking the only Commandment given to him. Minimizing Adam’s disobedience is understandable - hey, he’s our Dad! But, we have to be realistic - and identify that what he did was not only wrong, but has consequences for us today.

God bless

 

[kompaz]

My line of argument is very simple and I find it amusing that you can’t understand it:

Disobedience was not wrong to Adam, because he did not know the concept of wrong before eating the fruit.

Here is a more fitting analogy.

A 15-year old is left alone at home by his dad. Prior to leaving, the dad tells him “Do not read the magazines I have in my wardrobe, or you will become homeless” When the dad leaves, the 15-year-old promptly goes to the wardrobe, finds Dad’s collection of porn and familiarizes himself with in. The Dad comes back home, finds that his collection is in disarray, and confronts the kid. The kid is like: “Uh, yes, I read through your stuff… So what?” The Dad goes ballistic, says “I must remove him before he spreads fornication in this house!” and kicks the kid out on the street.

Now, your interpretation is that Dad’s action was an act of loving discipline for the kid’s disobedience. You have to listen to Dad, you now.

My interpretation is that Dad’s action was due to the kid acquiring understanding of sexuality, which Dad does not want him to have.

(Note: the above should not be taken to mean that the Original Sin was sexual in nature!)

My source? The text itself. Read it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

I’m glad that you are amused. I’ve grown weary.

You have no source and have simply clung to your distorted view of disobedience and its consequnces. There is no possible way one can be DIS-obedient without knowing what is expected of them. While you claim Adam was, in fact, disobedient, it was then God’s role to administer the punishment He determined to be best. There was no appeal.

While it is obvious, you are in disagreement with the actions taken by God in response to Our First Parent’s sin - I suggest you continue to read the entire text to see what else happens. And, then exert yourself to use more then your personal interpretation of Scripture to juggle the meaning you wish to have.

I really can not give you any more - you can not even agree on a definition. And, on that note, I wish you well but I haven’t the time or energy to continue playing your game. The three parables in Matthew 25 are instructive about people who claimed to have their own way about doing things but found out too late that they had it all wrong. If you did not like God’s Justice with Adam and Eve, chances are you will find fault with how God resolved these matters.

God bless

My line of argument is very simple and I find it amusing that you can’t understand it:

Disobedience was not wrong to Adam, because he did not know the concept of wrong before eating the fruit.

Here is a more fitting analogy.

A 15-year old is left alone at home by his dad. Prior to leaving, the dad tells him “Do not read the magazines I have in my wardrobe, or you will become homeless” When the dad leaves, the 15-year-old promptly goes to the wardrobe, finds Dad’s collection of porn and familiarizes himself with in. The Dad comes back home, finds that his collection is in disarray, and confronts the kid. The kid is like: “Uh, yes, I read through your stuff… So what?” The Dad goes ballistic, says “I must remove him before he spreads fornication in this house!” and kicks the kid out on the street.

Now, your interpretation is that Dad’s action was an act of loving discipline for the kid’s disobedience. You have to listen to Dad, you now.

My interpretation is that Dad’s action was due to the kid acquiring understanding of sexuality, which Dad does not want him to have.

(Note: the above should not be taken to mean that the Original Sin was sexual in nature!)

My source? The text itself. Read it.

 

[grannymh]

My line of argument is very simple and I find it amusing that you can’t understand it:

Disobedience was not wrong to Adam, because he did not know the concept of wrong before eating the fruit.

Here is a more fitting analogy.

A 15-year old is left alone at home by his dad. Prior to leaving, the dad tells him “Do not read the magazines I have in my wardrobe, or you will become homeless” When the dad leaves, the 15-year-old promptly goes to the wardrobe, finds Dad’s collection of porn and familiarizes himself with in. The Dad comes back home, finds that his collection is in disarray, and confronts the kid. The kid is like: “Uh, yes, I read through your stuff… So what?” The Dad goes ballistic, says “I must remove him before he spreads fornication in this house!” and kicks the kid out on the street.

Now, your interpretation is that Dad’s action was an act of loving discipline for the kid’s disobedience. You have to listen to Dad, you now.

My interpretation is that Dad’s action was due to the kid acquiring understanding of sexuality, which Dad does not want him to have.

(Note: the above should not be taken to mean that the Original Sin was sexual in nature!)

My source? The text itself. Read it.

Thank you for your interpretation. I have read many similar ones so I do understand your basic position.

Now, I will admit that I have not heard about a 15-year-old boy reading porn magazines so that is unique with your position. The similarity I find is the analogy attempt to substitute a human Dad with his decomposing anatomy for a Pure Spirit. Also, since I believe in a good God, the idea of real God having a collection of porn magazines is a bit odd.

I wonder what happens in your analogy when an obedient boy turns 21.

 

[fhansen]

My line of argument is very simple and I find it amusing that you can’t understand it:

Disobedience was not wrong to Adam, because he did not know the concept of wrong before eating the fruit.

Here is a more fitting analogy.

A 15-year old is left alone at home by his dad. Prior to leaving, the dad tells him “Do not read the magazines I have in my wardrobe, or you will become homeless” When the dad leaves, the 15-year-old promptly goes to the wardrobe, finds Dad’s collection of porn and familiarizes himself with in. The Dad comes back home, finds that his collection is in disarray, and confronts the kid. The kid is like: “Uh, yes, I read through your stuff… So what?” The Dad goes ballistic, says “I must remove him before he spreads fornication in this house!” and kicks the kid out on the street.

Now, your interpretation is that Dad’s action was an act of loving discipline for the kid’s disobedience. You have to listen to Dad, you now.

My interpretation is that Dad’s action was due to the kid acquiring understanding of sexuality, which Dad does not want him to have.

(Note: the above should not be taken to mean that the Original Sin was sexual in nature!)

My source? The text itself. Read it.

A better analogy would be if the dad said, ‘If you leave home, you’ll be homeless’. Disobedience of God is disassociation with God; He’s no longer the god of your world; Eden was lost. This is why the first commandment, to come later, would read as it did; man must have God in His ‘proper place’ in his life. Disobedience of God is disassociation with nature-a step for man outside of the natural order of things, and this should be evidenced to us now by the myriad of ways man awkwardly attempts to fit into his world-and the myriad of ways he shows he doesn’t.

Nothing was gained by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-to come to know, by tasting evil, that the two even exist, except that, once evil is known, we can gain the wisdom to run from it, to realize that the so-called knowledge was worthless.

 

[grannymh]

A better analogy would be if the dad said, ‘If you leave home, you’ll be homeless’. Disobedience of God is disassociation with God; He’s no longer the god of your world; Eden was lost. This is why the first commandment, to come later, would read as it did; man must have God in His ‘proper place’ in his life. Disobedience of God is disassociation with nature-a step for man outside of the natural order of things, and this should be evidenced to us now by the myriad of ways man awkwardly attempts to fit into his world-and the myriad of ways he shows he doesn’t.

Nothing was gained by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-to come to know, by tasting evil, that the two even exist, except that, once evil is known, we can gain the wisdom to run from it, to realize that the so-called knowledge was worthless.

In my humble opinion, analogies fail because God is a Pure Spirit and not a human daddy. Furthermore, Adam was not some dumb bunny like everyone thinks. Adam had immense value from the get-go. (Source: first three chapters of the Book of Genesis)

 

[fhansen]

In my humble opinion, analogies fail because God is a Pure Spirit and not a human daddy. Furthermore, Adam was not some dumb bunny like everyone thinks. Adam had immense value from the get-go. (Source: first three chapters of the Book of Genesis)

Unless we use analogies we may as well not even try to speak of God. ‘Pure Spirit’ doesn’t have much meaning either. Don’t know where anyone would think I intended to say Adam lacked immense value.

 

[grannymh]

Unless we use analogies we may as well not even try to speak of God. ‘Pure Spirit’ doesn’t have much meaning either. Don’t know where anyone would think I intended to say Adam lacked immense value.

If I misunderstood the following quote from post 106, please accept my sincere apology. Unfortunately, I read it as Adam not having knowledge of right and wrong before he chose to shatter his unusual relationship with His Creator.

“Nothing was gained by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-to come to know, by tasting evil, that the two even exist, except that, once evil is known, we can gain the wisdom to run from it, to realize that the so-called knowledge was worthless.”

The following comment is my own observation. If you wish to address it, please do so. “Adam had immense value from the get-go. (Source: first three chapters of the Book of Genesis)”

In my humble opinion, realizing that God is a Pure Spirit helps me to understand the relationship of God with a human person who has a limited, material, decomposing anatomy. This, of course, explains why God directly creates the spiritual soul. In turn, we can understand how God can call us to share, through knowledge and love in God’s own life of happiness forever.

 

[tqualey]

Awwwwwwwwwwwww, Grannymh, cut him some slack…

Every analogy out there has a limp, some moreso than others (admittedly we all just came across one that was a paralytic!) Actually, God is the purest of Pure Spirits… and when it comes to God’s love for mankind - He bestowed on our First Parents Preternatural Gifts catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763. With these Gifts, it all came down to man pitting his will against the Divine Will

So, Neither Adam or Eve were overcome with a blinding passion to disobey God, nor were they mentally blinded by the words of the Devil - they knew what they were to do, and they chose to disobey. They were judged guilty by God because they had full knowledge of their action and gave full consent.

Ultimately, we all have a lesson here - but, a much harder one for us to learn without those Preternatural Gifts - if we abuse our Free Will, we will pay the consequences. Some of those consequences can be fast and sudden in this life, but all sin will be judged in the next life.

Now, I do not want to sound harsh on our First Father and Mother … I tell my wife that I am constantly amazed at how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden - had it been me, instead of Adam, I would not have lasted as long as he did! I tell her this when she is ‘tempting’ me with something like gardening or housework… (Being retired is not as easy as it looks!)

God bless

In my humble opinion, analogies fail because God is a Pure Spirit and not a human daddy. Furthermore, Adam was not some dumb bunny like everyone thinks. Adam had immense value from the get-go. (Source: first three chapters of the Book of Genesis)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fhansen,

Nice post!

The Devil has taken the term ‘empty promises’ and turned it into his only way of doing business! He can only promise ‘big things’ because he has nothing himself. In addition to everything else - he fell for his own lie: he can not be like God!

Every Easter we renew our Baptismal Promises - and specifically renounce Satan and his empty promises. catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1047 Of course, we do not have to wait until Easter to do this. With all of the evil in Satan - no one has ever accused him of being lazy!

God bless

A better analogy would be if the dad said, ‘If you leave home, you’ll be homeless’. Disobedience of God is disassociation with God; He’s no longer the god of your world; Eden was lost. This is why the first commandment, to come later, would read as it did; man must have God in His ‘proper place’ in his life. Disobedience of God is disassociation with nature-a step for man outside of the natural order of things, and this should be evidenced to us now by the myriad of ways man awkwardly attempts to fit into his world-and the myriad of ways he shows he doesn’t.

Nothing was gained by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-to come to know, by tasting evil, that the two even exist, except that, once evil is known, we can gain the wisdom to run from it, to realize that the so-called knowledge was worthless.

 

[fhansen]

If I misunderstood the following quote from post 106, please accept my sincere apology. Unfortunately, I read it as Adam not having knowledge of right and wrong before he chose to shatter his unusual relationship with His Creator.

“Nothing was gained by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-to come to know, by tasting evil, that the two even exist, except that, once evil is known, we can gain the wisdom to run from it, to realize that the so-called knowledge was worthless.”

God told Adam & Eve not to eat of the Tree; nothing was to be gained; it was unnecessary, not beneficial. Why should knowledge of evil be good? They were simply told by the most glorious being, who’s immensity they apparently didn’t yet recognize or appreciate (there was some reason they took it upon themselves to disobey, something that caused their mistrust), to not eat of it. He determines right and wrong; He is the source of Adam’s morality, not Adam. So yes, Adam knew right from wrong, because He was given that information from God, whose Word he nevertheless did not trust! He did* not* yet know good and evil at that point. For Adam, for man, “right”=obedeince of God, “wrong” =disobedeince of God. Anything outside of or opposed to the will of God is ipso facto evil, and the knowledge of evil was gained as soon as the first act of disobedience-opposition to His will -was done.

 

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, my favorite explanation of that organic tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) is contained in CCC 396 and CCC 398. Of course, I am sure that others have their favorite explanations. I am simply stating my favorite.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[fhansen]

In my humble opinion, my favorite explanation of that organic tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) is contained in CCC 396 and CCC 398. Of course, I am sure that others have their favorite explanations. I am simply stating my favorite.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

IMO, humble or otherwise, that’s my favorite as well. Guess there’s no point in commenting or expounding on it, tho.

 

[grannymh]

What I see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 is the relationship between Adam, a spiritual creature, and his Creator. This is further explained by CCC 301 which is the cross-reference in the margin. A key concept in CCC 301 is “'Recognizing the utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:”

Before reading the rest of CCC 301, one has to read paragraphs 20-21 in order to understand why the small print is being used.

The depth of the relationship between Creator and creature is one part of Original Sin’s complexity. The depth of this relationship forms a basis for Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

 

[fhansen]

What I see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 is the relationship between Adam, a spiritual creature, and his Creator. This is further explained by CCC 301 which is the cross-reference in the margin. A key concept in CCC 301 is “'Recognizing the utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:”

Why, if you care to speculate, do you think Adam failed to recognize his “utter dependence with respect to the Creator”?

 

[grannymh]

Why, if you care to speculate, do you think Adam failed to recognize his “utter dependence with respect to the Creator”?

I do not see any evidence that Adam failed to recognize his dependence on his Creator. He made a deliberate choice with full knowledge. Remember that the garden is a both a place of friendship *and *responsibility. God talked with Adam about the importance of living in free submission to his Creator. In addition, God gave Adam the task of cultivating and caring for the garden.(Source: Genesis 2: 15-17)

 

[fhansen]

I do not see any evidence that Adam failed to recognize his dependence on his Creator. He made a deliberate choice with full knowledge. Remember that the garden is a both a place of friendship *and *responsibility. God talked with Adam about the importance of living in free submission to his Creator. In addition, God gave Adam the task of cultivating and caring for the garden.(Source: Genesis 2: 15-17)

He made a deliberate choice to die, knowing full well he depended on his Creator to live? He didn’t actually mistrust God, even going to the extent that he thought he could be God, himself?

How could he be said to have recognized his dependency on God if he thought he could be “without God”?:
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

 

[grannymh]

He made a deliberate choice to die, knowing full well he depended on his Creator to live? He didn’t actually mistrust God, even going to the extent that he thought he could be God, himself?

How could he be said to have recognized his dependency on God if he thought he could be “without God”?:
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

The recognition of the dependent relationship between the creature and Creator has to be agreed to or denied by Adam who did have the capability of free choice. This relationship is described by these phrases in CCC 398 – “the requirements of his creaturely status”, and “constituted in a state of holiness”, and “destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory”.

By reading CCC 397, one finds that the “first choice” was that Adam freely chose to let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. Even at that point, he could have returned trust to his heart. Instead, his free choice was to abuse his freedom by his action of disobeying God’s command. This disobedient act means that he chose his own desires and thus he preferred himself to God and by that very act Adam scorned His Creator and shattered his relationship with God. Yet, God did not abandon Adam.
(Source: the Protoevangelium, CCC 410)