Original Sin

[OneSheep]

If I may add, granny. If you or anyone is feeling the least bit isolated by having feelings of resentment toward humanity, you are not alone. All of us, me included, have resented some aspect of the human.

We resent our desires to be in control, dominate, want material stuff, and want other people’s stuff. We resent our sex drives. We resent our compulsion to punish. We resent “selfishness”. We resent “laziness”. We resent our desires for popularity and status. We resent our capacity for anger. We resent our capacity for addiction. The list is personal. We all have our “pet peeves”.

Resentment is not limited to the religious. Plenty of atheists resent the human.

And when we resent, we see a “badness” within. All of this is due to the workings of our conscience. When we see a badness, we fight it, we behave. This is the way it is supposed to work, and it does work!

 

[vames]

And then there is the option of believing Catholic doctrines.

“And then there is” implies that Catholic doctrines are different from what I wrote. So how is the idea that our nature is weak, wounded and sinful BECAUSE of Adam’s sin and that we suffer and die BECAUSE of Adam’s sin? Is it or not Catholic doctrine?

 

[grannymh]

My apologies, I think that there is a distinction you are making that I am not aware of. In your view, is there, or was there, a “stain” on the human because of Adam’s behavior? If so, is this not a matter of resentment? Does OS not give the impression that the human has somehow “fallen” into disfavor in some way? That there is some payment to be made in order to expiate the wrath or resentment?

Please clarify your position. If God never resented us, if he never “took offense”, then what is Original Sin to you? Please, please, do not quote the CCC. Just tell me what it says in your words.

My mother would say: “One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

I, as a humble creature on earth, refuse to be changed or remade from an ordinary person grateful for the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition into someone dressed in the silk of independent, personally preferred, explanations for some rather unpleasant Catholic doctrines. I will continue to cite the CCC as the source of my information. In fact, my citation sources respect the intelligence of readers who may be curious as to what all is being said in CCC sources.

Because of the Doctrines about human nature which the Catechism explains in relationship with the real Original Sin and the real Salvific Mission of Jesus Christ, I know for certain, that when life appears like a sty, I can call out to the God Shepherd Who will keep me close to His heart, no matter how much mud falls from my clothes. I must make my choice, even when it means that I have to express my desire for God’s personal forgiveness.

Even as a very young student learning about some fundamental Catholic doctrines, I did think that the word “stain” was a rather strange way to describe a real action by the first human. The Catechism’s clarification (CCC 404-405) of Original Sin makes more sense in light of the fact that there are two, sole, real humans who are the founders of humankind.

Links
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

“And then there is” implies that Catholic doctrines are different from what I wrote. So how is the idea that our nature is weak, wounded and sinful BECAUSE of Adam’s sin and that we suffer and die BECAUSE of Adam’s sin? Is it or not Catholic doctrine?

I did not specify the amount and extent of Catholic Doctrines regarding the reality of Adam and the reality of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. It is essentially important to include St. Paul’s teachings along with those which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Naturally, it is possible to water down any option.

Now, as to your separate question about one, individual complicated doctrine taken out of the context of all the doctrines, the answer is yes with the comment that one needs to especially watch for the various interpretations of the word “sinful”.

 

[simpleas]

Well, as to your last paragraph the Apostle Paul comes to mind, the paradox is we are sinners who must not sin. Thus the sacraments of the Church. That leads to your previous thoughts on marriage, again a sacrament and a vocation. Here…

foryourmarriage.org/the-vocation-of-marriage/

The Pope goes to confession weekly as was this true with Bl John Paul II, a Saint soon to be recognized as one. From here its easier to see oneself as granny quoted Genesis: “Where are you”. Constant self inventory and sometimes two steps forward and one backward. This way you take full responsibility for your actions thus contrition. Or as St Teresa of Avila said; “We shall never learn to know ourselves except by endeavoring to know God; for, beholding His greatness we realize our own littleness; His purity shows us our foulness; and by meditating upon His humility we find how very far we are from being humble.”

Thanks for the link. I do understand the vocation of marriage, what i meant was if we are to live for God only, we could not marry, as we couldn’t share our life with another, but i also understand that even if married God comes before your partner.

I also understand Jesus was pure, but must we always think of ourselves as foul?

 

[simpleas]

Well, perfect? Hmmm. I think we are beautiful in God’s eyes, but perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Jesus calls us to be perfect, so if we were already perfect, this would be an unnecessary call. It does mean, though, that it is within reach. Depends on the definition of perfection.

Are we humans capable of “full forgiveness?” Wow, do you have a great set of questions! You are a born thread-starter, for sure!

Here is how I know when I have forgiven someone:

1. I have admitted that I could have done what he did, and I see myself as no better than he is.
2. I understand why the person did what he did, to the degree that I understand why* I *would have done it.
3. (Most important) I no longer hold anything against the person. I have no desire to punish the person, or give them “what they deserve.” I sense that the person “deserves” to be loved and enlightened. (Note: this is not the same as not wanting the person to pay their debt to society.)

I have wondered, simpleas, if there is more to forgiveness than what I have already experienced. Well, why not? Why would there not be more to reconciliation than we already know? I will file that question under “mysteries”. It’s one of those “How do I know what I don’t know?” questions.

I can agree with no.1
No.2 not so sure, ok we may understand why the person did what they did, but that we could also do the same…mmmm…need to think about that more.
No.3 we would desire punishment for a time until the person is convicted.

I know forgiveness is not easy to do, it can take years for someone to forgive another, it isn’t instant, like the way christ can do it! ha.

 

[simpleas]

Well, that is what we are discussing. My choice to sin has nothing to do with what Adam did. I take full responsibility for my sin. My sin boils down to my ignorance, my God-given appetites, and my automatic blindness. You may feel the same way, but I’m not sure.

Adam did not create himself. I did not create myself. Both of us were born with the capacity to sin, to disobey. I see that those capacities are part of the gift, hard as it is to believe.

I do like the “lawlessness” definition, thanks for putting it in here. Would we even care? Let’s assume for a moment that we would not care. That is not giving the benefit of the doubt (we are called to give the benefit of the doubt), but let’s assume it anyway. If we would not care, why would we not? Would you agree with me, that something is blocking our care?

Would we prefer our own way to God’s? Another good question. Let’s assume the WCS, again, and say we would prefer our own way, contrary to what God asks. Why would we do this? What is our intent?

I have in my mind an episode of a loony-tune where a little chicken hawk is intent on killing huge Foghorn Leghorn. Its a hilarious attempt to overpower. Can you picture God doing this when we try to have our way? The human nature is predictable, but quite loveable. We are a top predator. Like all top predators, lions, killer whales, monitor lizards, etc., we are naturally compelled to dominate our environment. Can you see the innocent ignorance of a child trying to be more powerful than his parents?

Are you saying that people isolated from laws don’t know right from wrong? I’m not sure you are saying this. Isolated human populations form rules and mores very similar to non-isolated societies. Yes, God gives them these laws- through their nature.
We have no reason to believe that we are any less ignorant now than Adam was upon his creation. In fact, evidence shows that we have done nothing but increase in awareness since the beginning of our species presence on Earth, at least in recorded history. But I have no reason to argue the point. The bigger question is “Did God ever feel resentment toward His creation”? Does God take offense?

You have a point, there. “Simple blindness” is not the whole answer to me either. Man wants to dominate everything. Where does this innate desire to dominate come from?

So, we are in complete agreement about unconditional love.

And actually, fhansen, if you are taking that to heart, which I believe you are, forgiving people unconditionally, with the same “foolish love” of Jesus, then we are really coming from the same viewpoint. It does seem to me that you may still hold something against Adam or mankind, that there is some cause for resentment on God’s part. If you hold it against people that they want to dominate God, can you forgive them? Can you reconcile with your own drive to dominate?

I mean, look at the forum. People try to “win”. It is part of our nature. We want to be in control, to be on top. It’s not just a human thing, many other species have the same drive.

The question in bold.

The flood, noahs ark springs to mind? Also God says he is a jealous God…

I asked this question before in another thread i think and noone could answer it, maybe someone here can…

When God was displeased with his creation after the fall, he found favor with Noah and his family to be the only humans saved from his flood of the earth, and numerous animals etc. When he blessed them and told them to be fruitful and fill the earth again, why wasn’t the OS wiped away then? Isn’t it at this time the second chance came about, to destroy so many of his children, only to leave the stain of sin with the chosen family doesn’t make sense to me…

 

[grannymh]

I can agree with no.1
No.2 not so sure, ok we may understand why the person did what they did, but that we could also do the same…mmmm…need to think about that more.
No.3 we would desire punishment for a time until the person is convicted.

I know forgiveness is not easy to do, it can take years for someone to forgive another, it isn’t instant, like the way christ can do it! ha.

Now that you have tackled
"Here is how I know when I have forgiven someone:

1. I have admitted that I could have done what he did, and I see myself as no better than he is.
2. I understand why the person did what he did, to the degree that I understand why* I *would have done it.
3. (Most important) I no longer hold anything against the person. I have no desire to punish the person, or give them “what they deserve.” I sense that the person “deserves” to be loved and enlightened. (Note: this is not the same as not wanting the person to pay their debt to society.)"
   Would you apply these steps to God knowing when He forgives someone?

 

[grannymh]

The question in bold.

The flood, noahs ark springs to mind? Also God says he is a jealous God…

I asked this question before in another thread i think and noone could answer it, maybe someone here can…

When God was displeased with his creation after the fall, he found favor with Noah and his family to be the only humans saved from his flood of the earth, and numerous animals etc. When he blessed them and told them to be fruitful and fill the earth again, why wasn’t the OS wiped away then? Isn’t it at this time the second chance came about, to destroy so many of his children, only to leave the stain of sin with the chosen family doesn’t make sense to me…

I do not do Noah because he is not the first human person.
However, I do wonder where the funny idea that God was displeased with His creation after the Fall came from. I guess the person who told me that John 3:16 is primarily a Protestant quote was correct. Because Catholics do not seem to be aware of it.

 

[grannymh]

I do not do Noah because he is not the first human person.
However, I do wonder where the funny idea that God was displeased with His creation after the Fall came from. I guess the person who told me that John 3:16 is primarily a Protestant quote was correct. Because Catholics do not seem to be aware of it.

The funny idea that God was displeased with His creation comes from Genesis 6: 11-13.

The better interpretation is that God was very pleased with the goodness of His creation and especially with the pinnacle of His works, the human person. This fact is affirmed by the important verse 8 of Genesis, chapter 6. “But Noah found favor with the Lord.” This fact of God’s continual love for humanity is also affirmed in the often ignored verses John 3: 16-17.

Therefore, God took the appropriate step of maintaining this goodness by the elimination of certain obstacles …which also demonstrated the power of God to redeem humanity clearly overshadowed the power of Satan’s evil.
CCC, 1219.The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:

The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.

References: 1 Peter 3: 18-22 and Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of water.
​

 

[vames]

I did not specify the amount and extent of Catholic Doctrines regarding the reality of Adam and the reality of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. It is essentially important to include St. Paul’s teachings along with those which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Naturally, it is possible to water down any option.

Now, as to your separate question about one, individual complicated doctrine taken out of the context of all the doctrines, the answer is yes with the comment that one needs to especially watch for the various interpretations of the word “sinful”.

I guess your observation about the various interpretations has to do with the Protestant theory of total depravity, as opposed to the Catholic “stain” or “wound” of the Original Sin. Of course, I’m not interested in discussing total depravity. I can only notice the logical and practical consequences of 1) assuming responsibility for our sins and seeing the story of the Original Sin as a legitimate attempt of our ancestors to explain everything that they didn’t understand and didn’t like in their life; 2) blaming Adam and Eve for our sins and seeing the Fall as the only explanation for everything that we don’t like in our life.

1. We know that illness, aging and death, the impulse and effort of fighting for food and mates are natural things ordered by God and shared by all His creatures. We also know that the human soul is spiritual and rational, capable of knowing and loving God, and that our reason, our knowledge of ourselves and God are not perfect, but they gradually develop throughout our individual and collective life. We can’t see any of these realities as “bad”, since God created them; we can’t see them as the expression of His wrath towards us, since we know that God loves us. We see that these natural realities didn’t disappear after the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and don’t disappear after Baptism and Eucharist, so the purpose of the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and the sacraments wasn’t to undo these realities, but to offer us the divine grace to seek and know God in this life, to avoid sin (=misusing our God-given capacities) and to hope in an eternal heavenly life.

Is something wrong, un-Catholic in this logic? Does it lead us to diminish the glory of God, the glory of the Incarnation and Resurrection and the necessity of the sacraments? Is it insufficient to make us aware of the importance of struggling to avoid sin? On the contrary. We don’t need to think about our life as a caricature of a past earthly happiness and perfection: it is what it is, there was never a human being unable to feel pain, forever young or able to control every movement of his body by the power of his reason. And this frees us to really love God with all our hearts and to really love our neighbor as ourselves.

1. We believe what the text of Genesis 3 says: that all these natural realities are part of the curse inflicted by God upon the whole creation (humans, birds, fish, trees), because one act of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve triggered His enduring wrath. But how can we avoid hating ourselves, hating our fellow humans and dreading God, since we see that the elements of that curse define all of our life? A mother whose child dies minutes after birth has to believe that the child deserved to die because God couldn’t actually forgive the mistake of Adam and Eve; she has to believe that if the soul of her unbaptized child ends up in Hell/Hades/Limbo, the soul deserved it for the same reason and she also deserves the same fate if she rejects to accept that human ignorance, suffering, death and risk of eternal damnation are expressions of this curse.

So what options has a human being who sees and feels this curse every day? The Fall created a new humanity, radically different from Adam and Eve: my body and mind are inclined to sin, my will is weak, I can be struck dead and end up in hell for one mortal sin. The “bargaining” begins: maybe my prayers for mercy will be listened if I mortify my body by flagellation and wearing cilices? maybe I can avoid the premature death of my loved ones if I give up any entertainment and intellectual pleasure? maybe the next earthquake will spare my family if I become a nun? maybe I can avoid purgatory if I leave my illness untreated? maybe I can make reparation for the human offenses against God if I ask Him to make me a “victim soul”? And so on. This sad “bargaining” has been real and is real in the life of many Catholics.

 

[grannymh]

“Two men looked out from prison bars,
One saw the mud, the other saw stars.”​

 

[OneSheep]

Because of the Doctrines about human nature which the Catechism explains in relationship with the real Original Sin and the real Salvific Mission of Jesus Christ, I know for certain, that when life appears like a sty, I can call out to the God Shepherd Who will keep me close to His heart, no matter how much mud falls from my clothes. I must make my choice, even when it means that I have to express my desire for God’s personal forgiveness.

I am glad for you, but what I am saying is that many, if not most of us, do not find any such comfort in the doctrine of Original Sin.

Even as a very young student learning about some fundamental Catholic doctrines, I did think that the word “stain” was a rather strange way to describe a real action by the first human. The Catechism’s clarification (CCC 404-405) of Original Sin makes more sense in light of the fact that there are two, sole, real humans who are the founders of humankind.

Okay, I apologize up front for my hypocrisy, but it needs to be here to show the reader the contradiction:

CCC
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.

There it is. “a mystery we cannot fully understand”. I have no problem with mysteries, but if the mystery is such that it conflicts with God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, which the story of Adam and Eve does indeed conflict with in the eye of any ordinary human, then there is a problem that has to be clarified. The “mystery” is put into even more of a negative light when Jesus has to come and die as a matter of “justice” or expiation.

Where does this leave the “mystery”, other than that God simply resents us (had not forgiven Adam) and Jesus had to come and die in order to erase the resentment?

When people “fall from our grace”, it is a matter of resentment, is it not?

It is true that humans do bad things. But do humans have a “badness”? Is this our “state”? If the perception of such “badness” is not an observation from the standpoint of resentment, what is it? Humans are ignorant and have a capacity for blindness. Is this bad? Do you resent it?

So, when you have “revelation” in doctrine leading to doubts about God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, the “revelation” has to be revisited.

I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to our “badness”. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”? That our “salvation” is not payment made to God’s displeasure, offense, resentment, or what have you but that salvation comes from the revelation that God loves and forgives unconditionally? That God forgives everyone, even Adam, before we even ask for forgiveness? ** This is the God that people find when they have forgiven everyone they hold something against.**

The notion that God’s behavior in the story of the tree of knowledge is a story about man and his God-given conscience, not about man and his unconditionally loving Father, is one way to revisit the “revelation” that the CCC refers to.

I know, it is a lot of questions. But you keep leaving questions unanswered, and we need to be able to answer for our faith in a way that makes sense to the unchurched. What is evangelization if we are trying to turn people to a faith that makes no sense?

 

[OneSheep]

The better interpretation is that God was very pleased with the goodness of His creation and especially with the pinnacle of His works, the human person.

Yes! This is what I am saying too, Granny.

Seeing that man has some kind of “fallen state”, that he is either flawed or somehow stained, or that God had somehow taken offense to his action and not forgiven him is all part of an illusion created by our own resentment toward ourselves.

Mud is beautiful, if you take a good look at it.

 

[OneSheep]

I also understand Jesus was pure, but must we always think of ourselves as foul?

The fact is, that the parts of ourselves that we resent, we will think of as foul. So, if we forgive the parts of ourselves that we resent, we will no longer think of ourselves as foul.

I can agree with no.1

Yes, I remember your humble statements from the beginning of this thread.

No.2 not so sure, ok we may understand why the person did what they did, but that we could also do the same…mmmm…need to think about that more.

I understand your hesitation, and I do need to clarify. I ask, “could I have done the same, if I had the same life experiences and perceptions as that other person?” This takes a lot of “what was he thinking?” introspection. It is an exercise in plank-removal.

No.3 we would desire punishment for a time until the person is convicted.

I know forgiveness is not easy to do, it can take years for someone to forgive another, it isn’t instant, like the way christ can do it! ha.

Yeah, it’s not easy. If I want a person to feel pain, to suffer, for their deeds, then I have not forgiven completely. From a position of forgiveness I could say, “I want the person to suffer and feel pain if such suffering would help him see the light.”, but if I am not open to the person “seeing the light” without the pain and suffering, then chances are I still hold something against the person. I supposed I have learned to be wary to ways I can think I have forgiven someone, but have not.

The control aspect is a very important component when we are talking about grudges. I heard a priest say once “Forgiveness happens when we give up trying to change the past.” If we are still in the mode of needing to control a bad situation, forgiveness is very difficult.

 

[fhansen]

Yes! This is what I am saying too, Granny.

Seeing that man has some kind of “fallen state”, that he is either flawed or somehow stained, or that God had somehow taken offense to his action and not forgiven him is all part of an illusion created by our own resentment toward ourselves.

Mud is beautiful, if you take a good look at it.

I think there’s truth to this-shame is not of God; it’s to* not* be pleased with the goodness of His creation, with “the way things are”. But anything not of God comes from elsewhere-and He opposes it. He’ll understand it, He’ll work with it, He’ll forgive it, He’ll heal it, but He won’t condone it. Our “flaw”-our misery-is in not going along with the program, in rejection of the Programmer. Hell is said to simply be the absence of God.

 

[OneSheep]

Of course, I’m not interested in discussing total depravity. I can only notice the logical and practical consequences of 1) assuming responsibility for our sins and seeing the story of the Original Sin as a legitimate attempt of our ancestors to explain everything that they didn’t understand and didn’t like in their life; 2) blaming Adam and Eve for our sins and seeing the Fall as the only explanation for everything that we don’t like in our life.

1. We know that illness, aging and death, the impulse and effort of fighting for food and mates are natural things ordered by God and shared by all His creatures. We also know that the human soul is spiritual and rational, capable of knowing and loving God, and that our reason, our knowledge of ourselves and God are not perfect, but they gradually develop throughout our individual and collective life. We can’t see any of these realities as “bad”, since God created them; we can’t see them as the expression of His wrath towards us, since we know that God loves us. We see that these natural realities didn’t disappear after the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and don’t disappear after Baptism and Eucharist, so the purpose of the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and the sacraments wasn’t to undo these realities, but to offer us the divine grace to seek and know God in this life, to avoid sin (=misusing our God-given capacities) and to hope in an eternal heavenly life.

Is something wrong, un-Catholic in this logic? Does it lead us to diminish the glory of God, the glory of the Incarnation and Resurrection and the necessity of the sacraments? Is it insufficient to make us aware of the importance of struggling to avoid sin? On the contrary. We don’t need to think about our life as a caricature of a past earthly happiness and perfection: it is what it is, there was never a human being unable to feel pain, forever young or able to control every movement of his body by the power of his reason. And this frees us to really love God with all our hearts and to really love our neighbor as ourselves.

I am in agreement. But are we unable to control every movement of our body, though, with the power of our reason? I suppose that depends on what is meant by “able” and “control” and “reason”. We can be in control of our behaviors, otherwise, Jesus’ call for repentance, and indeed hope for the Kingdom, is all for nought.

The power of our conscience is a big determiner in our decisions, and the conscience is deeper, and less subject to flexibility, than reason. Is this what you are referring to?

I am a big fan of Paul Glasser’s “control theory”. Ever heard of him?

1. We believe what the text of Genesis 3 says: that all these natural realities are part of the curse inflicted by God upon the whole creation (humans, birds, fish, trees), because one act of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve triggered His enduring wrath. But how can we avoid hating ourselves, hating our fellow humans and dreading God, since we see that the elements of that curse define all of our life? A mother whose child dies minutes after birth has to believe that the child deserved to die because God couldn’t actually forgive the mistake of Adam and Eve; she has to believe that if the soul of her unbaptized child ends up in Hell/Hades/Limbo, the soul deserved it for the same reason and she also deserves the same fate if she rejects to accept that human ignorance, suffering, death and risk of eternal damnation are expressions of this curse.

So what options has a human being who sees and feels this curse every day? The Fall created a new humanity, radically different from Adam and Eve: my body and mind are inclined to sin, my will is weak, I can be struck dead and end up in hell for one mortal sin. The “bargaining” begins: maybe my prayers for mercy will be listened if I mortify my body by flagellation and wearing cilices? maybe I can avoid the premature death of my loved ones if I give up any entertainment and intellectual pleasure? maybe the next earthquake will spare my family if I become a nun? maybe I can avoid purgatory if I leave my illness untreated? maybe I can make reparation for the human offenses against God if I ask Him to make me a “victim soul”? And so on. This sad “bargaining” has been real and is real in the life of many Catholics.

This is what Catholic scrupulosity is all about (among other doctrines). The “mystery” in CCC 404 leaves God’s unconditional love hanging in doubt. The scrupulous are forever psychotic about whether or not they will be saved. It is based on fear of a mysteriously behaving god. This forum is full of people dealing with such fear.

If we, the Catholic Church, cannot stand up and erase all doubt about God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, then we are not promoting the Kingdom.

 

[vames]

I am in agreement. But are we unable to control every movement of our body, though, with the power of our reason? I suppose that depends on what is meant by “able” and “control” and “reason”. We can be in control of our behaviors, otherwise, Jesus’ call for repentance, and indeed hope for the Kingdom, is all for nought.

The power of our conscience is a big determiner in our decisions, and the conscience is deeper, and less subject to flexibility, than reason. Is this what you are referring to?

No; I was referring to the perfect, superhuman control of the “flesh” enjoyed by Adam, in the sense given by Augustine and Aquinas (remember posts #230 and #377?). The ideal, original man was totally obedient to God, so his “flesh” (reproductive system) was totally obedient to his reason. So when Adam became disobedient to God, “the flesh” became in turn disobedient to Adam’s reason. This must have been a very humiliating punishment.

Now if I’d follow the logic of Augustine and build my own ideal Adam and Eve, perhaps I’d imagine them controlling their sleep, being able to function regardless of sleep deprivation. A stressed student at an exam would say that Adam and Eve could control their churning stomachs, a makeup artist would want control over the reflex of blinking… and so on. But the difference was that Augustine and Aquinas thought about sex drive as sinful.

Thanks for mentioning this “control theory”, it seems interesting!

 

[grannymh]

I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to our “badness”. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”?

Thank you. You have given me a clue as to the misinterpretation of Genesis, chapter 3 and the words of Christ crucified. Thank you.

This is the comment in post 525. It refers to the doctrine(s) of Original Sin. CCC 404 is also presented in post 525 as one of the doctrines surrounding Original Sin.
"Posted by OneSheep.

I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to our “badness”. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”?
Back to my opening thanks for the clue, which is the use of the plural “our” instead of the appropriate single “his”. In other words, the post 525 comment above should be corrected to *I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to **his **“badness”. * "His" needs to refer back to the original Adam and badness needs to be explained as the ultimate badness of deliberately severing the delicate relationship between creature and Creator. In his case, badness can refer the one-time Original Sin. In *our *case, badness can refer to mortal sin.

Conspicuously absent from this thread is the meaning of his Original Sin found in CCC, 398. CCC,398 compliments
CCC, 404 and thus it is not a contradiction of CCC, 404.

We read comments about disobedience and about forgiving all the people. Some even opine that he Adam did not know what he was doing when he freely committed Original Sin. It appears that the real distinction between he/him and our/all is lost. This lost is apparent when an individual is not recognized as being a single she or he in both time and space.

The difficulty of distinguishing he from our is due to the fact that our human nature has been transmitted from him via propagation. So we battle to keep “I” at the top. And our spirituality topples.

 

[simpleas]

Well, if you take the literal story of Adam and Eve seriously, then it’s unavoidable to think that our life (with its suffering, sins and death) is a punishment from a distant God who must be really upset with us, since He didn’t and won’t lift the curse, no matter what - regardless of the Atonement, regardless of the Baptism, regardless of endless penance, mortifications, supplications, reparations from people. You will manage to feel guilty and worthless and to blame everything on Adam, Eve, you and your neighbor. There were saints and very religious people who mutilated their own bodies out of that guilt, in an attempt to unroot sin, to punish their bodies, to free themselves of their “weak, wounded, sinful nature”, to become again worthy of God’s love. And there are people who even today claim that the vast majority of souls are thrown in hell, because this “weak, wounded, sinful nature” is disgusting in the eyes of God who obviously is still offended by the sin of Adam and Eve.

On the other hand, if you reject the literal story, there’ll be always people who will try to make you feel guilty for “choosing an easier way”, for refusing to “take responsibility” for the sin of Adam and Eve or for “blurring the boundaries” between the Creator and creature. IOW you mustn’t dare to think about God as a loving parent, closer to you than you are close to yourself, because a Creator is not a parent. You mustn’t dare to think that God created us as imperfect people, who evolve naturally from the unconsciousness of a small child towards the maturity of an adult, who fall ill, suffer and die like any other creature. No, the idea of such a creation would be demeaning to the perfect God - so you must think that the first man was created as an inhumanly perfect adult who, despite his inhuman perfection and despite having zero experience of evil, singlehandedly brought all the sin on earth and God’s curse on mankind, by a SINGLE act of disobedience. So you must think that Adam in a way is the real creator of our world.

Most of all you have written here is what I have been thinking.
Although i don’t feel any resentment to Adam, Eve or even God for what happened.
I blame myself for not understanding, or at least being able to make a decision on what I should believe.
Some things make sense, others don’t and it gets very confusing…