Original Sin

[vames]

And if there’s any truth to the idea that the story contains such wisdom, or contains anything worthy of our consideration at all for that matter, this would be truly amazing in light of the fact that it came from a millennia-old source.

Anything that comes from a millennia-old source contains wisdom because this is the way the revelation about God and man has unfolded. What we have to keep in mind is that this process of unfolding hasn’t ended and doesn’t end with anyone of us. What was profoundly true for Paul is profoundly true for us, too:
“8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13).

We seem to be discussing OS along with the story of creation from two different views: one , that man never fell; he simply started out without the maturity, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, love that he needed in order to have peace, harmony, and happiness. The other viewpoint is that he fell from a higher, innocent state to a lower one. And I!m not sure that both aren’t actually true. And another question comes up here: if ancient man would’ve known human death-if that was within the realm of his experience-how would that affect him- his sense of well-being? Did humans exist, from the beginning, with no ties to their Maker, no connection to the source of their lives, lost, with no direct knowledge of something greater than themselves?

Both are true. A child is both innocent&happy and immature. The problem starts when we think that we should blame and punish the child for being what he is and for being so slow to achieve maturity.

The “thirst for God”, for something greater than us, is something that is as human as death. The very awareness of our limitations and weaknesses, of suffering and death prompts us to find answers, to yearn for immortality, perfection, beauty and goodness, to seek God. The most ancient proofs of the existence of man attest that man has always been religious.

In any case, both perspectives allow for the idea that something isn’t quite right, change is in order. And I happen to think that justice would demand that change is in order, given the harm that humans are capable of commiting by remaining apart from God. IOW there’s an obligation, on the part of man, to change. And the New Covenant recognizes that we can’t do that on our own.

But sometimes i think we still really object to such demands being placed on us, that we still resist our obligation to be right, right according to God’s will. And that is essentially what Adam objected to. Just some rambling thoughts.

Very true. But one can realize that change is in order, can obey and fulfil God’s will even if he doesn’t feel the continuous need to see himself and the others like stained creatures who deserve punishment by default.
And yes, we really NEED our Savior.

 

[vames]

I’m not understanding how this “wonder” comes about. Forgiveness is a painful effort, but is freeing when the grudge is seen for what it is, a burden on the soul. Maybe you could give an example to clarify?

My brother-in-law is Orthodox and he was taught that Catholics are *** because they are heretics (it’s easy when you know very few Catholics personally). He “forgave me for being a Catholic”, because he knows me personally and he can see that I don’t bite and we have a lot in common, not only when it comes to religion. But I know that he oscillates between the need to alter his rulebook and the need to make me convert. It doesn’t mean that he has resentments against me, it means only that his conscience isn’t quiet. Another example: you remember the famous “atheists can do good things” - what??? - oh, but he’s our Pope - but still - ok, atheists can do good things - but then what about…

I think that the “when” happens with subsequent experience. I have come to accept the fact, for me, that we are somewhat “doomed” to have conscience reactions. We can “skip” our rulebook when we are aware that the rulebook has been triggered in the first place. For me, sometimes I just have a feeling of general negativity, and then I figure out that I feel resentment, and then I realize I either broke my own rule or someone else did and I am reacting. Yes, I am that slow.

An important assumption of our vigilant conscience is the idea that part of the time or most of the time people have full knowledge when they do something bad. I am rational, healthy, informed, I know what I am doing, so why should I suppose that this is not the default for anybody? Besides, when you feel guilty/angry at someone else, you tend to assume that anything that can’t fuel your guilt/anger is nothing but a lousy excuse: you need new motives to accuse yourself/the other.

That’s why we all are “slow” to analyze and shed the negativity, especially when we are very young, very healthy, very informed and very inexperienced in recognizing blindness and ignorance. It took me A LOT of time to forgive all the people who have killed a person in a lengthy process of exorcism, long time ago, and those who even today continue to claim that the person was possessed and not mentally ill, because I couldn’t shed the anger and the doubt: how come that they were so sure that they were torturing the devil and not an innocent person? what if today some people have realized that the person was mentally ill, but continue to use this case to promote “the good cause”?

Yes! It is a matter of looking at his whole being with my whole being! And realistically, I tried for years to “separate the sin from the sinner” and it never really worked for me. To really forgive, I have to take the painful steps of walking through the other person’s acts and seeing the good intent (and the blindness) the whole way through.

Last year I watched the video of the confession of a mass-murderer; it took me several weeks to work out all of my reactions and forgive. I am not introspectively “quick”.

I don’t think anybody is introspectively “quick”. The separation of sin from the sinner IMO is the primary reality when you find out that something bad happened, not a mark that you have gone through the process of introspection and forgiveness. You read the news: “X was killed”. You have no idea who killed him and why, you don’t know if the killer was mentally ill or moved by jealousy, if the killing was accidental or with the intention to steal his money etc. So you can’t actually judge, because you don’t know anything and can’t afford to guess anything. I have called “pre-forgiveness” the realization that, because you don’t know anything, you can’t start to foam at the mouth, to curse the anonymous killer and wish him tortured and killed in revenge.

Now if you are really unprepared to forgive by “looking at his whole being with your own being”, you will try to perpetuate this primary separation sin/sinner even after you get to know various things about the killer and you will even try to reject and undo this knowledge when you notice that your indignation grows, because as a Christian you know that you shouldn’t hate the sinner. Result: the sinner is an abstraction and your head is safely buried in the sand. Or if this Christian rule isn’t part of your rulebook, you continue to accumulate knowledge this way: you choose the details that can fuel your indignation and discard the details that can make you peacefully refrain from “casting the first stone”.

 

[fhansen]

Very true. But one can realize that change is in order, can obey and fulfil God’s will even if he doesn’t feel the continuous need to see himself and the others like stained creatures who deserve punishment by default.

Yes, well, I’d certainly have no reason to doubt that. The Atonement should serve as definitive proof that God’s really on man’s side. It seems to take time to get to that conclusion, however. And that’s really the whole point of our faith.

 

[fhansen]

So we are told that THEY were to blame for having conceived a “distorted” image of God, when in fact God, according to the same doctrine, behaved exactly like “a God jealous of his prerogatives”: A&E didn’t throw themselves away from Eden, didn’t commission the cherubim to guard the entrance and didn’t punish themselves and all the creation with death and suffering, simply because they didn’t have such powers. They were creatures.

But isn’t that exactly true-that humankind conceives a distorted image of God? Isn’t that, in fact, what we’re talking about-that humans tend-automatically-to presume that god or the gods are angry at them, consciously or not? Jesus remarked that they hated him without reason. The OT was rife with misunderstanding, even as the Jews were gradually growing nearer to the truth, to the messiah. Christianity has been rife with degrees of misunderstanding, but it’s been moving closer as well, the light of the gospel increasingly having its way-revelation increasingly being better understood. It’s a long journey.

 

[OneSheep]

The first and the third conditions are possible, the second is the problem. Unless you are an Omniscient Glamorous Granny, the rest of us only sin out of ignorance and blindness.

People do sin when they are fully aware of what they are doing I think. Isn’t that why we have so many problems in our world. But I do agree about ignorance and blindness to a degree…but so many do turn a blind eye knowing full well that it is the wrong thing to do.

Well, I am not closed-minded about the possibility, but I have yet to find a single example of someone who sins while being fully aware of what they are doing.

Please, feel free to bring up an example, and I can demonstrate. You may present something I have never considered, and I am quite open to that.

You may feel a little troubled about bringing up something personal, we can test the hypothesis on historical figures or public figures if you like.

 

[OneSheep]

Now if you are really unprepared to forgive by “looking at his whole being with your own being”, you will try to perpetuate this primary separation sin/sinner even after you get to know various things about the killer and you will even try to reject and undo this knowledge when you notice that your indignation grows, because as a Christian you know that you shouldn’t hate the sinner. Result: the sinner is an abstraction and your head is safely buried in the sand. Or if this Christian rule isn’t part of your rulebook, you continue to accumulate knowledge this way: you choose the details that can fuel your indignation and discard the details that can make you peacefully refrain from “casting the first stone”.

Great analysis. Love the line “head is safely buried in the sand”. We don’t really think about it when we are doing it. I am quite the expert at denial when the need arises.

 

[OneSheep]

And if one does not confess that this **wrath **exists, he deserves even more **wrath **and condemnation.

The Council of Trent
DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously **threatened **him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

Brutal. This would be a great time to present that quote from Cardinal Ratzinger again. Your scope on the topic continues to amaze me.

 

[OneSheep]

We seem to be discussing OS along with the story of creation from two different views: one , that man never fell; he simply started out without the maturity, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, love that he needed in order to have peace, harmony, and happiness. The other viewpoint is that he fell from a higher, innocent state to a lower one. And I!m not sure that both aren’t actually true.

I am very much in agreement here. If a person feels very guilty about the wrongs they have done in their life, and has not forgiven himself, then he is very likely going to see truth in the Fall. I’m sure there are other reasons that people lean toward believing in the Fall, but in any case it is very difficult to intellectually argue the topic. If a person is self-condemning in any way, the person is going to make more sense out of the idea of the Fall.

So, really, it does no good the argue the point intellectually. It is a spiritual thing, based in relationship. Was I “wrong” when I saw God as wrathful? No. I felt bad about things I had done in my past, and had not forgiven myself. My conscience had me categorized in a fairly negative “state”. That was the voice I heard within.

And another question comes up here: if ancient man would’ve known human death-if that was within the realm of his experience-how would that affect him- his sense of well-being? Did humans exist, from the beginning, with no ties to their Maker, no connection to the source of their lives, lost, with no direct knowledge of something greater than themselves? The story of creation tells us they did have such a connection and the Atonement solves the problem of death for those-for everyone-who came later, after that knowledge had reportedly been lost. Otherwise, would a loving God create sentient, rational beings in a state where death/non-existence was the obvious destiny-the world as an apparent slaughterhouse?

In any case, both perspectives allow for the idea that something isn’t quite right, change is in order. And I happen to think that justice would demand that change is in order, given the harm that humans are capable of commiting by remaining apart from God. IOW there’s an obligation, on the part of man, to change. And the New Covenant recognizes that we can’t do that on our own.

But sometimes i think we still really object to such demands being placed on us, that we still resist our obligation to be right, right according to God’s will. And that is essentially what Adam objected to. Just some rambling thoughts.

I love those rambling thoughts. Yes, both perspectives see that change is in order. And both perspectives recognize that the human has a resistance to any obligation whatsoever. One perspective usually condemns the resistance, the other not. I did condemn the resistance, but then I came to realize, in my prayer life, that God gives us our autonomy, a desire for freedom. All rules appear to limit freedom. The resistance is natural, as you can predict my saying so.

Thus, the classic conflict between freedom and safety.

And let me take one step further on this. A few years ago, I felt really guilty about neglecting something and garnered the humility to admit that I am just plain lazy.

After making this painful admission, it dawned on me that “laziness” itself, one aspect of “sloth”, was a resistance against all the demands to “do” in this world, whether those demands come from the people around us or from our very nature, a nature which demands us to procreate, get lots of material stuff, and is very territorial.

At the risk of sounding very psychobabblish about it, I think that there is good reason to embrace our laziness. Laziness is a standing for our autonomy, autonomy from the demands of everyone around us, autonomy from the demands of our own bodies and minds.

 

[vames]

But isn’t that exactly true-that humankind conceives a distorted image of God? Isn’t that, in fact, what we’re talking about-that humans tend-automatically-to presume that god or the gods are angry at them, consciously or not? Jesus remarked that they hated him without reason. The OT was rife with misunderstanding, even as the Jews were gradually growing nearer to the truth, to the messiah. Christianity has been rife with degrees of misunderstanding, but it’s been moving closer as well, the light of the gospel increasingly having its way-revelation increasingly being better understood. It’s a long journey.

Exactly, and this is the “wisdom from a millennia-old source”.
You can read Genesis as an amazing dream about us: a story about how man fears himself, fears the environment, fears God. There is a common “metaphor” in our dreams, when we are unsure, guilty, ashamed, stressed, scared, unable to solve a complicated problem: we dream that we are *naked *or partially naked, we dream that we fall, that we are thrown out from a place or a time that we love, that we aren’t recognized anymore by our beloved ones, that we are *lost *somewhere in an unknown, hostile place.
Maybe this is how our being feels when we are born and have to leave the wonderful maternal womb, by such an unpleasant process; if the newborn could talk, maybe he would say: What have I done to be expelled like this? Are you angry at me? I want back, I don’t like this world! What can I do to convince you to take me back and love me again?

(The difference is that the doctrine says that God was indeed angry.)

 

[grannymh]

Well, if the degree of harshness is a measure of truthfulness,

Interesting.

However,
Original Sin is not a degree of harshness. Original sin is a specific action which removed original holiness from the soul of the first human being. Original holiness is not a degree. One of the definitions for original holiness is that it is the state of sharing in the life of the Creator

 

[grannymh]

Apparently, we have forgotten the simple fact that **wrath and indignation **can be a justifiable and rightful position. For example, as a reaction to a fire in a clothing factory.

The error about wrath and indignation comes from the narrow view that everything is an either - or proposition. Thus, there is avoidance of the reality that God does not reward people who deliberately sin against Him.

Perhaps, it is time for some people to wake up to real life.

 

[simpleas]

Well, I am not closed-minded about the possibility, but I have yet to find a single example of someone who sins while being fully aware of what they are doing.

Please, feel free to bring up an example, and I can demonstrate. You may present something I have never considered, and I am quite open to that.

You may feel a little troubled about bringing up something personal, we can test the hypothesis on historical figures or public figures if you like.

Ok maybe something like this.

I see around me friends brought up catholic in committed relationships outside of marriage and with children. They know the teaching on living in sin, but they still have decided to live like this. So maybe they bury their heads in the sand, or they just get on with life in a society that no longer promotes the idea of living in sin…

Not sure about our leaders of the world, they say we must go to war in other countries, yet many innocent people especially children suffer the consequences, or are killed. Is this not sinning against God and ourselves in full knowledge?
Like you have said until people learn to forgive we can’t ever expect to have peace.
And are we just as much to blame as we vote to put people in power, then stand by watching all the terrors unfold?

 

[fhansen]

Exactly, and this is the “wisdom from a millennia-old source”.
You can read Genesis as an amazing dream about us: a story about how man fears himself, fears the environment, fears God. There is a common “metaphor” in our dreams, when we are unsure, guilty, ashamed, stressed, scared, unable to solve a complicated problem: we dream that we are *naked *or partially naked, we dream that we fall, that we are thrown out from a place or a time that we love, that we aren’t recognized anymore by our beloved ones, that we are *lost *somewhere in an unknown, hostile place.
Maybe this is how our being feels when we are born and have to leave the wonderful maternal womb, by such an unpleasant process; if the newborn could talk, maybe he would say: What have I done to be expelled like this? Are you angry at me? I want back, I don’t like this world! What can I do to convince you to take me back and love me again?

(The difference is that the doctrine says that God was indeed angry.)

We can also read it perhaps a little differently, as a story that suggests man somehow placed himself above God, for whatever reasons, separating himself from truth, from his own nature/reality, which explains his feelings of foreignness in the world he’s born into, and explains why he might have dreams trying to show him his nakedness, his falleness, his lostness.

 

[fhansen]

I am very much in agreement here. If a person feels very guilty about the wrongs they have done in their life, and has not forgiven himself, then he is very likely going to see truth in the Fall. I’m sure there are other reasons that people lean toward believing in the Fall, but in any case it is very difficult to intellectually argue the topic. If a person is self-condemning in any way, the person is going to make more sense out of the idea of the Fall.

So, really, it does no good the argue the point intellectually. It is a spiritual thing, based in relationship. Was I “wrong” when I saw God as wrathful? No. I felt bad about things I had done in my past, and had not forgiven myself. My conscience had me categorized in a fairly negative “state”. That was the voice I heard within.

I love those rambling thoughts. Yes, both perspectives see that change is in order. And both perspectives recognize that the human has a resistance to any obligation whatsoever. One perspective usually condemns the resistance, the other not. I did condemn the resistance, but then I came to realize, in my prayer life, that God gives us our autonomy, a desire for freedom. All rules appear to limit freedom. The resistance is natural, as you can predict my saying so.

Thus, the classic conflict between freedom and safety.

And let me take one step further on this. A few years ago, I felt really guilty about neglecting something and garnered the humility to admit that I am just plain lazy.

After making this painful admission, it dawned on me that “laziness” itself, one aspect of “sloth”, was a resistance against all the demands to “do” in this world, whether those demands come from the people around us or from our very nature, a nature which demands us to procreate, get lots of material stuff, and is very territorial.

At the risk of sounding very psychobabblish about it, I think that there is good reason to embrace our laziness. Laziness is a standing for our autonomy, autonomy from the demands of everyone around us, autonomy from the demands of our own bodies and minds.

But, if our anti-authoritarianism echoes back to that of Adam, and if freedom from His loving constraints have, at the extreme, resulted in the worst crimes against humanity imaginable, then maybe the real conflict is one between freedom and wisdom, the wisdom that Adam hadn’t yet gained, the wisdom to recognize God’s wisdom.

 

[fhansen]

Now if you are really unprepared to forgive by “looking at his whole being with your own being”, you will try to perpetuate this primary separation sin/sinner even after you get to know various things about the killer and you will even try to reject and undo this knowledge when you notice that your indignation grows, because as a Christian you know that you shouldn’t hate the sinner. Result: the sinner is an abstraction and your head is safely buried in the sand. Or if this Christian rule isn’t part of your rulebook, you continue to accumulate knowledge this way: you choose the details that can fuel your indignation and discard the details that can make you peacefully refrain from “casting the first stone”.

But are you acknowledging and forgiving sin-or denying the reality of sin altogether?

 

[grannymh]

But are you acknowledging and forgiving sin-or denying the reality of sin altogether?

The denial of Adam’s wisdom before the Fall is the root error that leads to the problem of the reality of sin per se or the reality of the one Original Sin when there is ignorance, blindness, and unconditional forgiveness as a reward. This becomes the contemporary denial of God’s goodness, justice, and mercy.

The distracting error regarding God’s forgiveness makes it difficult for common sense to kick in when dealing with the Catholic theology of the first three chapters of Genesis.

In addition, the rather strange attributes being assigned to the human conscience appear to override Catholic teaching on human nature which in turn becomes an indirect denial of God’s goodness, justice, and mercy in creating human nature for Adam, the first person in human history who actually lived before the Fall.

Thus, we have circular reasoning which keeps us away from the true spirituality offered by the Catholic Church. :bigyikes:

 

[fhansen]

The denial of Adam’s wisdom before the Fall is the root error that leads to the problem of the reality of sin per se or the reality of the one Original Sin when there is ignorance, blindness, and unconditional forgiveness as a reward. This becomes the contemporary denial of God’s goodness, justice, and mercy.

I’m not sure, though. Adam had knowledge, because he was given it. But it seems he lacked the wisdom to heed it, or else he wouldn’t have sinned. The reason man is said to be divided within himself is because this knowledge that he denied is part of his own make-up-of his nature. It’s the knowledge that obedience of God is right-and there are consequences to disobedience. In the end it’s really the very knowledge of God that was denied. In any case, the question that remains is, why did Adam sin? And I think it’s a valid question, one which theologians have addressed before.

 

[OneSheep]

To my friends Granny and fhansen: Happy Thanksgiving! And to vames and simpleas, Happy Thanksgiving to you also, but I guess you have to wait until the next time you go to Eucharist (Eucharist=thanksgiving)

 

[fhansen]

Thanks, OneSheep, happy Thanksgiving to you as well. And thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and helping with the opportunity to stretch my thoughts on this subject a bit more!

 

[grannymh]

Thank you all for your Thanksgiving wishes.
It is a good time to remember our blessings.