Original Sin

[vames]

I think he does believe in Satan as he has mentioned satan in his homilies in the past.

I’m not sure about purgatory, is it mentioned in the new testament, or was it the church that said we could end up there for more purification?
It sounds exhausting in some sense that we have to endure suffering in this life, that was supposed to be a great life for us creatures to enjoy from the start with God, to die and then have to suffer some more until we can reach God.
I’d rather it just be heaven or nothing…

My problem is not with the belief in satan or purgatory (check out this for a rational discussion), but with the fantasies that give satan such a terrifying power and give purgatory such a terrifying content. Such fantasies are totally incompatible with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God; they speak of people who clearly have imagined God as a terrifying tyrant. What you say about suffering on earth followed by even more suffering in purgatory was exactly my thought when I rejected those legends about hundreds of years of “purifying” torture. Something that I find very relevant as an answer to such things is the story of Jesus stilling the storm, when the disciples on the boat were afraid and asked Jesus: don’t you care that we are perishing? and Jesus made the wind cease and said: why are you frightened? don’t you have faith yet?

 

[vames]

Somewhere in scripture it says " if you deny me, i will deny you before my father" or words to that effect.

Isn’t this a condition of sorts?

I can’t understand how i can deny someone i have never seen, only heard about. Ok we trust in other people who did know Christ, but we have no solid evidence before our own eyes, so to accuse us of denying having known God is tough.

Please correct me if I misunderstand…

We can’t see or hear God, so the only “evidence” that we have about Him is creation - first and foremost people, who are made in His image. When we hate others and ourselves, we can’t recognize the image of God in people, so we “deny” God and can’t know that God is always with us. When we love others and ourselves, we recognize the image of God in people, so we “affirm” God and know that God is always with us. Calls to repentance and warnings are very useful in this context, because hating others and ourselves create an awful hell on earth for us and others, while loving others and ourselves create a paradise on earth.

The poem of St Teresa of Avila in #398 says the same. And the same idea is in your exchange with OneSheep about Our Lord’s prayer in posts #242-244, #324 and #333 (you said: us acknowledging that we ask for Gods forgiveness, and we acknowledge that we in turn forgive each other; OneSheep said: if we do not forgive, we will not know a God who forgives).

NT quotes to the same effect:

John 13:
34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Matthew 18:
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Matthew 25:
37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

This kind of a system of mirrors is a description of our life. You are not forced to believe, forced to love, forced to do some things without understanding why. You are just called to happiness: to understand and do what is best for you. Any good/bad deed has a reward/ punishment in itself. God knows that this understanding can’t happen overnight and that practice makes perfect, IOW we need experience = trials and errors = we are all sinners. This attitude of God is expressed in Jesus criticizing the pharisees because they “pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help”. Piling heavy burdens isn’t something that God does.

 

[fhansen]

In fairness to granny, no one can presume to know how well she or anyone else forgives or fails to forgive, such is revealed only by ones fruits-how they actually treat others. IMO she means to defend the position that salvation isn’t universal; that we’re not mere passive, unthinking beasts with no role to play in our salvation; what we choose to do counts; God doesn’t merely forgive without also expecting change in His creation.

Others, I’m sure, moved by their experiences of the unconditional nature of God’s love-and knowing that this love is inseparably linked to His forgiveness-want to emphasize that God forgives first-and then allows us to decide whether or not we care-whether or not we accept it. Maybe the catechism can offer something of value on this matter of forgiveness:

**2843 Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end,142 become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: "So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."143 It is there, in fact, “in the depths of the heart,” that everything is bound and loosed. It is not in our power not to feel or to forget an offense; but the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit turns injury into compassion and purifies the memory in transforming the hurt into intercession.

2844 Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.

2845 There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness,146 whether one speaks of “sins” as in Luke (11:4), “debts” as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another."147 The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relation ship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist.148

God does not accept the sacrifice of a sower of disunion, but commands that he depart from the altar so that he may first be reconciled with his brother. For God can be appeased only by prayers that make peace. To God, the better offering is peace, brotherly concord, and a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.149

2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
**

 

[vames]

Vames, I want to leave the thread today with post 639 because I stand in awe. That entry would suffice to be the last on this thread. None of our efforts are going to convince granny that God loves and forgives unconditionally, because it is only her experience that will show her. Granny herself will have to love and forgive someone unconditionally in order to understand what we are talking about. Granny will have to find that diary from her mother, as was your experience.

Thank you, friend but I wish Granny could avoid any “rough transition”, if such thing is possible. Is it possible? I could have found that diary many years ago, when most probably I’d have thought that, well, God’s ways are not a mother’s ways. About my first “original sins” I used to think that “the devil made me do it”. And Jesus made satisfaction for our sins to the Father. It was easier. Now I can’t say that I wish I had stayed innocent, but I wish I could have avoided all that pain. I know it was necessary and I am thankful for it, but I can’t wish it to anybody.

 

[grannymh]

Vames, I want to leave the thread today with post 639 because I stand in awe. That entry would suffice to be the last on this thread. None of our efforts are going to convince granny that God loves and forgives unconditionally, because it is only her experience that will show her. Granny herself will have to love and forgive someone unconditionally in order to understand what we are talking about. Granny will have to find that diary from her mother, as was your experience.

And it is sad that granny is in the position of using the CCC and argument to prove that God does not love us as much as Jesus showed us from the cross, as He forgave the crowd unconditionally. In addition, granny is equating forgiveness with approval, which is an equating of God with our conscience. Granny is trying to give the Catholic point of view, but she cannot understand the position of the prodigal son’s father.

From reading other posts, I observe that OneSheep speaks personally from his heart; therefore, I do not take any offense from his words in post 644.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of readers interested in Catholicism, I have the responsibility to clarify some of the untrue items.

For the record, I assume that the following sentence was written in haste.
“And it is sad that granny is in the position of using the CCC and argument to prove that God does not love us as much as Jesus showed us from the cross, as He forgave the crowd unconditionally.”
Obviously, this is not like the popular subtle attacks on Christ’s divinity which have been around for ages. I remember one of the first “adult books” I read about the life of Jesus. The chapter on the multiplication of loaves and fishes was all about how Jesus inspired the people to share whatever little food they had with each other. The chapter was full of details about loving one’s neighbor while neglecting the fact that the Divine Jesus had worked a major miracle. In John 6: 25 -27, we read an interesting comment by Jesus about people looking for human food and not considering the sign of the miracle. From this, we can get a small understanding why later in John, Chapter 6, some people did not recognize the greater miracle of the Eucharist as food for the soul.

The difference between this good neighbor example, which downgrades Jesus’s divine power, and post 644 comment quoted above, which refers to my beliefs about God and His forgiveness, is the subtle implication, most likely not intended, that I have separated God from Jesus, Who, according to OneSheep, forgave the crowd unconditionally.

In the words of post 644, I am in " the position of using the CCC and argument to prove that God does not love us as much as Jesus showed us from the cross, as He forgave the crowd unconditionally." The obvious ancient question is – Is the person Jesus on His cross God or not?

Is post 644 implying that because I allegedly consider God as not loving us as much as Jesus showed us, I am presenting God and Jesus as unequal persons? With Jesus being a better person than my *alleged *conception of God.

When I re-read the above quote from OneSheep’s post 644, I realized that it accidentally became the key to the misapplication of these words said by Jesus on His cross. Luke 23: 34a "Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” This misapplication leaves out the essentials of God’s forgiveness. Since there is only one God, it should follow that there would be only one “God’s forgiveness.”

Following His resurrection, Jesus instructed His disciples. "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I send you … Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. John 20: 19-23.
In this passage we see the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit as One. With the grace of the Trinity, the Catholic Church has made explicit Divine Revelation regarding human’s free will relationship with our Creator so that we understand the human conditions for forgiveness. This power to forgive or retain is based on human conditions which begin with the human person freely choosing to seek forgiveness. The basic conditions pertain to the person as a single individual and not to a general crowd. Catholicism teaches that the Creator has a personal relationship with each individual. This is because God created the human being as a rational being, conferring on her and him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control their actions. (CCC, 1730) Note that Jesus Christ as True God continued to have a personal relationship with each individual in the crowd while He was hanging bloody on His chosen cross.

Within the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, as one seeks God’s forgiveness for mortal sins, the individual should

1. personally confess and acknowledge the seriousness of the mortal sin,
2. detest the mortal sin for what it is,
3. express sorrow for the mortal sin because it is against God (destruction of Sanctifying Grace) Whom we love above all else,
4. resolve not to sin again which is our change of heart or our “conversion” to God,
5. pray what is known as the “Act of Contrition” or a similar form of prayer and
6. perform a “penance” as the sign of sincere repentance.
   (CCC, 1440-1460; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Links
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

 

[OneSheep]

From reading other posts, I observe that OneSheep speaks personally from his heart; therefore, I do not take any offense from his words in post 644.

Cool. However, in the past when I asked you to forgive me when you had seemed to take offense to my words, you did not respond. Try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Why doesn’t Granny either tell me that she forgives me, or tell me she took no offense. Telling me that you take no offense is personal, granny. Why is it that you can tell me about taking no offense but cannot tell me whether you forgave Adam, or forgave me, at which times, saying that those questions are personal?

Nonetheless, for the benefit of readers interested in Catholicism, I have the responsibility to clarify some of the untrue items.

For the record, I assume that the following sentence was written in haste.
“And it is sad that granny is in the position of using the CCC and argument to prove that God does not love us as much as Jesus showed us from the cross, as He forgave the crowd unconditionally.”
Obviously, this is not like the popular subtle attacks on Christ’s divinity which have been around for ages. I remember one of the first “adult books” I read about the life of Jesus. The chapter on the multiplication of loaves and fishes was all about how Jesus inspired the people to share whatever little food they had with each other. The chapter was full of details about loving one’s neighbor while neglecting the fact that the Divine Jesus had worked a major miracle. In John 6: 25 -27, we read an interesting comment by Jesus about people looking for human food and not considering the sign of the miracle. From this, we can get a small understanding why later in John, Chapter 6, some people did not recognize the greater miracle of the Eucharist as food for the soul.

The difference between this good neighbor example, which downgrades Jesus’s divine power, and post 644 comment quoted above, which refers to my beliefs about God and His forgiveness, is the subtle implication, most likely not intended, that I have separated God from Jesus, Who, according to OneSheep, forgave the crowd unconditionally.

My observation was not made in haste, and your comments here are again a red herring that do not address my observation. There was nothing in my observation that said that you separate God from Jesus. You have been arguing that God does not love us unconditionally, and what you said above does not refute that observation.

In the words of post 644, I am in " the position of using the CCC and argument to prove that God does not love us as much as Jesus showed us from the cross, as He forgave the crowd unconditionally." The obvious ancient question is – Is the person Jesus on His cross God or not?

Is post 644 implying that because I allegedly consider God as not loving us as much as Jesus showed us, I am presenting God and Jesus as unequal persons? With Jesus being a better person than my *alleged *conception of God.

When I re-read the above quote from OneSheep’s post 644, I realized that it accidentally became the key to the misapplication of these words said by Jesus on His cross. Luke 23: 34a "Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” This misapplication leaves out the essentials of God’s forgiveness. Since there is only one God, it should follow that there would be only one “God’s forgiveness.”

Following His resurrection, Jesus instructed His disciples. "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I send you … Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. John 20: 19-23.
In this passage we see the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit as One. With the grace of the Trinity, the Catholic Church has made explicit Divine Revelation regarding human’s free will relationship with our Creator so that we understand the human conditions for forgiveness. This power to forgive or retain is based on human conditions which begin with the human person freely choosing to seek forgiveness. The basic conditions pertain to the person as a single individual and not to a general crowd. Catholicism teaches that the Creator has a personal relationship with each individual. This is because God created the human being as a rational being, conferring on her and him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control their actions. (CCC, 1730) Note that Jesus Christ as True God continued to have a personal relationship with each individual in the crowd while He was hanging bloody on His chosen cross.

Within the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, as one seeks God’s forgiveness for mortal sins, the individual should

1. personally confess and acknowledge the seriousness of the mortal sin,
2. detest the mortal sin for what it is,
3. express sorrow for the mortal sin because it is against God (destruction of Sanctifying Grace) Whom we love above all else,
4. resolve not to sin again which is our change of heart or our “conversion” to God,
5. pray what is known as the “Act of Contrition” or a similar form of prayer and
6. perform a “penance” as the sign of sincere repentance.
   (CCC, 1440-1460; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

All of this continues to support the idea that God does not forgive unconditionally, and you have still not addressed the Father of the prodigal son. So, I think my observation is still valid. You are saying that God does not love us unconditionally, Granny.

I, personally, retain no one’s sins. Do you? For once, granny, answer that question.

 

[grannymh]

All of this continues to support the idea that God does not forgive unconditionally,

Correct.

and you have still not addressed the Father of the prodigal son.

Please do not worry about the Father of the Prodigal Son. He is a good man. I address him with respect and acknowledge his love and compassion. I share his joy when his son*** seeks*** a reunion with him.

So, I think my observation is still valid. You are saying that God does not love us unconditionally, Granny.

Incorrect.

I, personally, retain no one’s sins. Do you? For once, granny, answer that question.

I do not personally retain anyone’s sins.

 

[fhansen]

Unconditional forgiveness is the key aspect that contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin

I know you figure Vs post #639 definitively answers the question-and I really appreciated that post as well- but the above statement from a post of yours (if I rendered it correctly- I couldn’t find the original post) doesn’t quite make sense to me. If the OS consisted of Adam’s turning away from God then the concept of OS existing in his descendants would be described by that same estrangement. And I see that estrangement in evidence all over the world. And, if the purpose of our faith is to dissolve this estrangement, to reconcile man with God, a huge part of which is in coming to recognize and embrace God’s forgiveness, generally as we come to acknowledge our estrangement from Him, together with recognizing our sin and accepting that forgiveness, then how is God’s unconditional forgiveness at odds with the doctrine of OS?

 

[grannymh]

I know you figure Vs post #639 definitively answers the question-and I really appreciated that post as well- but the above statement from a post of yours (if I rendered it correctly- I couldn’t find the original post) doesn’t quite make sense to me. If the OS consisted of Adam’s turning away from God then the concept of OS existing in his descendants would be described by that same estrangement. And I see that estrangement in evidence all over the world. And, if the purpose of our faith is to dissolve this estrangement, to reconcile man with God, a huge part of which is in coming to recognize and embrace God’s forgiveness, generally as we come to acknowledge our estrangement from Him, together with recognizing our sin and accepting that forgiveness, then how is God’s unconditional forgiveness at odds with the doctrine of OS?

“Unconditional forgiveness is the key aspect that contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin” is the last sentence in post 619, page 42. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11400070&postcount=619

May I gently point out that it is only Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Who is able to dissolve “this estrangement” and to reconcile humanity with Divinity.

**IF **
all it took to dissolve “this estrangement” (**if **it were the purpose of our faith) was for we humans to recognize and embrace God’s forgiveness, generally as we come to acknowledge our estrangement from Him, together with recognizing our sin and accepting that forgiveness, there would be no reason for we humans waiting centuries. If all it took was for we humans to acknowledge etc., then we humans could hang any human from a cross. The sooner, the better.

To understand why “our sin” is not the sin which dissolved humanity’s Sanctifying Grace relationship with Divinity, please refer to post 632, page 43.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11401854&postcount=632
The last paragraph is crucial.

 

[fhansen]

May I gently point out that it is only Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Who is able to dissolve “this estrangement” and to reconcile humanity with Divinity.

Yes, may I gently point out that I referenced our faith, i.e. the Catholic faith regarding Jesus Christ, as having that purpose. We have our part to play-God has His, the 'big part", of course. Do you go out of your way to look for an argument granny?

 

[grannymh]

Yes, may I gently point out that I referenced our faith, i.e. the Catholic faith regarding Jesus Christ, as having that purpose. We have our part to play-God has His, the 'big part", of course. Do you go out of your way to look for an argument?

Yes.
Because post 657 has the IF (I put if in bold twice when I referred to post 657) and it refers to God’s unconditional forgiveness.
“And, if the purpose of our faith is to dissolve this estrangement, to reconcile man with God, a huge part of which is in coming to recognize and embrace God’s forgiveness, generally as we come to acknowledge our estrangement from Him, together with recognizing our sin and accepting that forgiveness, then how is God’s unconditional forgiveness at odds with the doctrine of OS?”
The Catholic Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation does present conditions for God’s forgiveness.

CCC, 1440-1460 and post 653, page 44,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11406020&postcount=653

This thread is about Catholic spirituality which is why I will continue to argue on behalf of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. And I will continue to argue that human nature first seeks God’s forgiveness in a personal one-to-one communication with the Creator.

When we take time to focus on God as the Creator, we will discover that
love and forgiveness are not the same exact thing. While love and forgiveness can interact, they cannot be equally interchanged. God’s unconditional love desires that which is good. God’s unconditional love does not desire that which is evil. God’s unconditional love will continue to be discussed in a future post.

 

[vames]

This doctrine says that there was an actual sin committed by the actual first human. There are no other first humans for Adam to forgive. The spouse of Adam is the second person. While she freely chose to commit the forbidden sin, Catholicism teaches that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. Now, Adam could forgive Eve for her bad example; however, that does not change her into first person responsibility. Therefore, Adam’s situation really does not connect to any situation involving people who no way can be the first human.

One could offer the idea that Adam should forgive himself . Here is the real difficulty. Adam did not create his relationship with the Creator because Adam is not even close to being on the same level as the Creator. Adam dictating terms to God would be similar to the tail wagging the dog. Granted that people deny God so that they can control God, but we do not find evidence of this in the first three chapters of Genesis. Despite Adam’s Original Sin, God, Who remains in control, continues to exist.

Thus, we have an unique Adam situation which can never be repeated in subsequent human history. Therefore, subsequent human history cannot contradict Original Sin.

What we do have is an unique Original Sin which can never be repeated in subsequent human history. Recall that there can only be one original, first sinner. What actually happens in subsequent human history are the personal mortal sins which also shatter the individual’s personal relationship with our Creator. Forgiveness is the true purpose of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

If there’s no way we can compare ourselves with Adam, because he was the first and enjoyed such a special relationship with God, then what exactly are we doing in all this unrepeatable story? Why are the children of ordinary people born with the OS, if none of us can re-create the conditions that led to the OS and none of us has the mind and privileges of Adam?

Either we postulate an Adam who was like a Titan or demigod - alone, unique, perfect, immortal, supremely bright, enjoying a special communication with God and a special life in the test tube of Eden, in a way that ordinary humans can’t even dream of, or we admit that Adam and Eve*** were two humans exactly just like us.

In the first scenario (Adam is not like one of us), if God’s curse has indeed struck all the descendants of this Adam, then it follows that we are simply other race, other species, maybe some pathetic mutants. Fallen, broken, suffering and mortal, incomparable with the beloved Adam and punished by God with an unchangeable curse, regardless of the Resurrection of Jesus. A real snake that crawls and sticks his tongue out has absolutely nothing in common with a supernatural snake that possesses legs, can speak and is incredibly intelligent. The real snake is another species, another race. If this fundamental mutation is compatible with a God that loves humankind, then it has to be admitted that a man who mutilates and disowns his child is a loving and responsible parent.

In the second scenario (Adam is like one of us), the idea of hereditary transmission of the Original Curse contradicts the teaching that a good and just God doesn’t punish children for the sins of their parents.

Now let’s try to put together the beautiful passages of CCC quoted by fhansen in #651 and this story about the primitive shame of two beings who couldn’t have been forgiven when they failed a test. There are two kinds of objections to the idea that the God of Genesis wasn’t a revengeful deity:

1. the Original Curse wasn’t a punishment, it was only the consequence of their sin - but there’s no logical consequence between Eve’s disobedience and childbirth pains, especially if she wasn’t The First Human = the culprit;
2. they deserved the Original Curse and we also deserve to inherit it - but I have yet to figure out why a God who loves us unconditionally has to pile so many burdens on us: one - we are born deserving hell because of A&E’s sin, two - we suffer and die because of A&E’s sin, three - our conscience is clouded because of A&E’s sin, so we are much more inclined to commit personal sins; four - we can always end up in hell because of our personal sins.

***You say that Adam was the only important being there and Eve didn’t actually count in all this story (Eve? yes, that poor thing who was so “forgivingly” condemned to suffer childbirth pains, together with all her female descendants). Are we obliged to believe that Adam was the first created human being and Eve was made later, from one of Adam’s ribs, as an accessory of Adam, a second hand human being? If the answer is yes, then it follows than any female dog or female spider is incredibly luckier than Eve, as long as their creation didn’t imply such hierarchization. I’m beginning to feel thankful that Genesis didn’t have a second account, too, about the creation of animals and birds, to inform us that female animals and birds were just byproducts of male ribs, feathers or claws.

 

[grannymh]

If there’s no way we can compare ourselves with Adam, because he was the first and enjoyed such a special relationship with God, then what exactly are we doing in all this unrepeatable story? Why are the children of ordinary people born with the OS, if none of us can re-create the conditions that led to the OS and none of us has the mind and privileges of Adam?

Either we postulate an Adam who was like a Titan or demigod - alone, unique, perfect, immortal, supremely bright, enjoying a special communication with God and a special life in the test tube of Eden, in a way that ordinary humans can’t even dream of, or we admit that Adam and Eve*** were two humans exactly just like us.

In the first scenario (Adam is not like one of us), if God’s curse has indeed struck all the descendants of this Adam, then it follows that we are simply other race, other species, maybe some pathetic mutants. Fallen, broken, suffering and mortal, incomparable with the beloved Adam and punished by God with an unchangeable curse, regardless of the Resurrection of Jesus. A real snake that crawls and sticks his tongue out has absolutely nothing in common with a supernatural snake that possesses legs, can speak and is incredibly intelligent. The real snake is another species, another race. If this fundamental mutation is compatible with a God that loves humankind, then it has to be admitted that a man who mutilates and disowns his child is a loving and responsible parent.

In the second scenario (Adam is like one of us), the idea of hereditary transmission of the Original Curse contradicts the teaching that a good and just God doesn’t punish children for the sins of their parents.

Now let’s try to put together the beautiful passages of CCC quoted by fhansen in #651 and this story about the primitive shame of two beings who couldn’t have been forgiven when they failed a test. There are two kinds of objections to the idea that the God of Genesis wasn’t a revengeful deity:

1. the Original Curse wasn’t a punishment, it was only the consequence of their sin - but there’s no logical consequence between Eve’s disobedience and childbirth pains, especially if she wasn’t The First Human = the culprit;
2. they deserved the Original Curse and we also deserve to inherit it - but I have yet to figure out why a God who loves us unconditionally has to pile so many burdens on us: one - we are born deserving hell because of A&E’s sin, two - we suffer and die because of A&E’s sin, three - our conscience is clouded because of A&E’s sin, so we are much more inclined to commit personal sins; four - we can always end up in hell because of our personal sins.

***You say that Adam was the only important being there and Eve didn’t actually count in all this story (Eve? yes, that poor thing who was so “forgivingly” condemned to suffer childbirth pains, together with all her female descendants). Are we obliged to believe that Adam was the first created human being and Eve was made later, from one of Adam’s ribs, as an accessory of Adam, a second hand human being? If the answer is yes, then it follows than any female dog or female spider is incredibly luckier than Eve, as long as their creation didn’t imply such hierarchization. I’m beginning to feel thankful that Genesis didn’t have a second account, too, about the creation of animals and birds, to inform us that female animals and birds were just byproducts of male ribs, feathers or claws.

So that we can have a future discussion centering on your post 660 – would you kindly post the exact Catholic teachings that you are describing? Thank you.

 

[vames]

Catechism of St Pius X (CCC Second Edition didn’t exist when I was catechized as a child, so a translation of this one was used by our priest):

1 Q. How many kinds of sin are there?
A. There are two kinds of sin: original sin and actual sin.

2 Q. What is original sin?
A. Original sin is the sin in which we are all born, and which we contracted by the disobedience of our first parent, Adam.

3 Q. What evil effects has the sin of Adam brought upon us?
A. The evil effects of the sin of Adam are: The privation of grace, the loss of Paradise, together with ignorance, inclination to evil, death, and all our other miseries.

---

35 Q. In what state did God place our first parents, Adam and Eve?
A. God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the state of innocence and grace; but they soon fell away by sin.

36 Q. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace did God confer any other gifts on our first parents?
A. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace, God conferred on our first parents other gifts, which, along with sanctifying grace, they were to transmit to their descendants; these were: (1) Integrity, that is, the perfect subjection of sense and reason; (2) Immortality; (3) Immunity from all pain and sorrow; (4) A knowledge in keeping with their state.

37 Q. What was the nature of Adam’s sin?
A. Adam’s sin was a sin of pride and of grave disobedience.

38 Q. What chastisement was meted out to the sin of Adam and Eve?
A. Adam and Eve lost the grace of God and the right they had to Heaven; they were driven out of the earthly Paradise, subjected to many miseries of soul and body, and condemned to death.

39 Q. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they have been exempt from death?
A. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and if they had remained faithful to God, they would, after a happy and tranquil sojourn here on earth, and without dying, have been transferred by God into Heaven, to enjoy a life of unending glory.

40 Q. Were these gifts due to man?
A. These gifts were in no way due to man, but were absolutely gratuitous and supernatural; and hence, when Adam disobeyed the divine command, God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of them.

41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone?
A. This sin is not Adam’s sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam’s sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?
A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

---

About Eve being made from a rib:

CCC 371: The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
CCC 766: As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

 

[grannymh]

Catechism of St Pius X (CCC Second Edition didn’t exist when I was catechized as a child, so a translation of this one was used by our priest):

1 Q. How many kinds of sin are there?
A. There are two kinds of sin: original sin and actual sin.

2 Q. What is original sin?
A. Original sin is the sin in which we are all born, and which we contracted by the disobedience of our first parent, Adam.

3 Q. What evil effects has the sin of Adam brought upon us?
A. The evil effects of the sin of Adam are: The privation of grace, the loss of Paradise, together with ignorance, inclination to evil, death, and all our other miseries.

---

35 Q. In what state did God place our first parents, Adam and Eve?
A. God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the state of innocence and grace; but they soon fell away by sin.

36 Q. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace did God confer any other gifts on our first parents?
A. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace, God conferred on our first parents other gifts, which, along with sanctifying grace, they were to transmit to their descendants; these were: (1) Integrity, that is, the perfect subjection of sense and reason; (2) Immortality; (3) Immunity from all pain and sorrow; (4) A knowledge in keeping with their state.

37 Q. What was the nature of Adam’s sin?
A. Adam’s sin was a sin of pride and of grave disobedience.

38 Q. What chastisement was meted out to the sin of Adam and Eve?
A. Adam and Eve lost the grace of God and the right they had to Heaven; they were driven out of the earthly Paradise, subjected to many miseries of soul and body, and condemned to death.

39 Q. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they have been exempt from death?
A. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and if they had remained faithful to God, they would, after a happy and tranquil sojourn here on earth, and without dying, have been transferred by God into Heaven, to enjoy a life of unending glory.

40 Q. Were these gifts due to man?
A. These gifts were in no way due to man, but were absolutely gratuitous and supernatural; and hence, when Adam disobeyed the divine command, God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of them.

41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone?
A. This sin is not Adam’s sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam’s sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?
A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

About Eve. Snipped due to space. Discuss later;

1 Q & A matches up with Adam’s sin which is separate from actual sins personally committed by his descendants

2 Q & A and 3 Q & A put together gives the information that we “contracted” the evil “effects” of the sin of Adam which is the Original Sin mentioned in 1 Q & A

Would you like to add 40 Q & A and 41 Q & A to the above?

What I do not find is the Catholic teaching which changed Original Sin to God’s curse in post 660.
The context is.
“In the first scenario (Adam is not like one of us), if God’s curse has indeed struck all the descendants of this Adam, then it follows that we are simply other race, other species, maybe some pathetic mutants. Fallen, broken, suffering and mortal, incomparable with the beloved Adam and punished by God with an unchangeable curse, regardless of the Resurrection of Jesus.”

I am glad you used the word “if” because the above is not from Catholic teaching. And what happened to Genesis 3: 15 and John 3: 16?
It could be possible to say that the “curse” is what 3 Q & A calls "evil effects. But then one has to consider “without any injustice” in 40 Q & A. and the “condition” in 42 Q & A

As I recall, there is no Catholic teaching which refers to Original Sin or even God’s curse as an “unchangeable curse, regardless of the Resurrection of Jesus.” in above quote from post 660. Instead, Catholicism teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism imparts the life of Christ’s grace and erases the contracted state of Original Sin. As for the spiritual battle with Satan’s temptations, Catholicism immediately points to Christ’s inexpressible grace and blessings which are superior to the powers of Satan. We have the Real Presence of the Risen Christ in the Holy Eucharist and God’s forgiveness when we choose the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

It is not totally fair to point out the bad without including the balance of good.

My apology – but I will be traveling and am not sure when I can get back to the computer.

In the meantime, point 1) from post 660 should be thought about.
There are two kinds of objections to the idea that the God of Genesis wasn’t a revengeful deity:

1. the Original Curse wasn’t a punishment, it was only the consequence of their sin - but there’s no logical consequence between Eve’s disobedience and childbirth pains, especially if she wasn’t The First Human = the culprit;
   It seems to me that the logical consequence between Adam’s disobedience and Eve’s childbirth pains is found in 36 Q & A (they were to transfer) because Eve shared the same pre-Fall human nature with Adam.

There is a lot to think about when I am riding in a car.

 

[vames]

It is not totally fair to point out the bad without including the balance of good.

Absolutely. But neither is fair to point out the good without including the balance of bad. I have already talked about that in post #285, so I don’t want to repeat myself. Jesus “harrowed the Hades” and opened the gates of Heaven for the souls and even this possibility is heavily restricted (the unbaptized… the purgatory… one mortal sin before death and you’re doomed…). But all the other elements of the punishment still remain in place. Why? Was Jesus unable to convince the Father to lift the curse? Was God the Father so offended that He still feels the need to exert physical revenge on people, animals, plants, the earth?

I said “curse” because everything was cursed in Genesis - Adam, Eve, all their descendants and all the nature shared this curse (“maledicta terra in opere tuo”). The curse was the enunciation of an assortment of punishments. And a punishment is different from a consequence. If I possess and use drugs, I destroy my health (a consequence) and I am arrested and jailed (a punishment). You can say that mortality was a consequence of what A&E did (the “evil effects” from the catechism), because God had warned them: you can eat anything, but if you eat from this tree, you will die - though even this would be a stretch, because the fruit wasn’t poisoned and disobedience isn’t known to cause death. But a logical consequence between Adam’s disobedience and any other element of the curse doesn’t exist. A&E were never told that if they disobey, men will have to toil till they drop, women will suffer childbirth pains and all the universe will become hostile to humans and will have to suffer and die.

To explain the reason for post #660: I didn’t intend to repeat the discussion about the “unchangeable curse”, but I thought your post #632 introduced 2 new elements in the discussion: 1 - Adam’s relationship with God can’t be paralleled to our relationship with God, because he was the first human and his situation does not connect to any situation involving his descendants; 2 - Adam is the first human, so he is the only one who is really responsible, as opposed to Eve, who was added later. So these elements made me wonder: 1 - how little do we in fact have in common with this superhuman, if we shouldn’t even try to compare ourselves to him? 2 - do we really have to believe even that Adam was made first from dust and Eve was made later from a rib? and if only Adam was responsible for the OS, as head of the human race, then why did Eve receive a specific punishment?

 

[grannymh]

My apology – but I will be traveling and am not sure when I can get back to the computer.

snip

There is a lot to think about when I am riding in a car.

I just printed Vames post 664. If the driver today is not talkative, maybe …

While munching cereal, my addiction to British murder mysteries ( follow-up to “Murder, She Wrote”) popped into my head. Often the mystery was not really a mystery; the solution was in a place which had been overlooked. Changing one’s focus was usually the key.

Looking back through the thread, there has been focus on these words of Christ. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Luke 23: 34. When we change focus, then we have to ask – What is it that people like Peter, Mary, John as part of the crowd, did know? What did the girl at Columbine High School know, whether or not she said it out loud?

Like biology scientists, we should examine all kinds of knowledge avenues without prejudice. I am probably the only high school student in history who convinced a proper nun/biology teacher that it was important that I personally, outside of class, skin the rat before dissecting it during lab and then bring the pelt home.

I wonder what is in this breakfast cereal. Now, I am remembering the CAF poster who started with Christ’s resurrection and then worked backwards to solve the puzzle of life. The last piece turned out to be the Adam story.

I better stick my glasses in my purse before I forget them. Have a good, interesting day you all.

 

[OneSheep]

Please do not worry about the Father of the Prodigal Son. He is a good man. I address him with respect and acknowledge his love and compassion. I share his joy when his son*** seeks*** a reunion with him.

So, the question remains. Would you forgive a son without the condition of the son’s repentance?

Does God forgive the son without the condition of the son’s repentance? I agree with vames analysis:

Quote from Vames:

1: “I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him…” - no condition imposed by the father: the son said this to himself before returning home, imagining that it would be very hard to earn his father’s forgiveness.

2: “While he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him” - no condition imposed by the father: this happens before the son had the time to say anything.

3: “Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned…” - no condition imposed by the father: this happens after the father received the son back and kissed him.

4: “But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe…” - no condition imposed by the father: the father simply ignores the request of the son to become a servant.

5: “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” - no condition imposed by the father: he noticed that the son chose to come back because he grew up and realized that he belonged home, not because the father asked him or ordered him to do that.

6: “But we had to celebrate and rejoice…” - no condition imposed by the father: he explicitly rejects the approach of the older brother, who demanded punishment for the younger brother.

If I am the prodigal son, my guilt, contrition, urge to do penance, attempts at reparation, feelings of unworthiness aren’t conditions imposed by my father. These are the consequences of my human nature: my reason allows me to notice that my life is worse now and will continue to be worse than when I was at home with my father (= this would be the equivalent of “imperfect contrition”) and my heart pushes me to feel sorry for what I have done to my loving father (= this would be the equivalent of “perfect contrition”). So I decide to correct my behavior and come back home, because my experience of being far from home allowed me to understand that I made a mistake, because I belong home, with my father.

But my father doesn’t NEED any of that so he can forgive me and kiss me and allow me back home. His love and forgiveness are not contingent on anything that I could ever do or say. Conditional love and forgiveness mean: “Son, there’s NO chance for you to be loved, forgiven and allowed back home IF you don’t say or do the following things: kneel and beg, say you aren’t worthy to consider yourself my son anymore, go and work as my servant for a while. Then I’ll forgive you and only then we can rejoice and celebrate. Your older brother is correct: you disobeyed me and left me, you devoured my property with prostitutes, so you have to pay. Do you refuse to fulfil my conditions? Then leave and don’t come back - I disown you, I can’t love and forgive such a bad son!”

Do you see conditions where we don’t? On the other hand, maybe we are actually on the same page here:

Quote from Granny:

I do not personally retain anyone’s sins.

Interesting. So, if you do not retain anyone’s sins, then you also forgive without condition. You do not find joy in unrepentance, but you forgive as the prodigal son’s father forgave, without demanding that the prodigal son repents, just as Jesus forgave the crowd without their showing any repentance whatsoever.

Happy travels!

 

[OneSheep]

I know you figure Vs post #639 definitively answers the question-and I really appreciated that post as well- but the above statement from a post of yours (if I rendered it correctly- I couldn’t find the original post) doesn’t quite make sense to me. If the OS consisted of Adam’s turning away from God then the concept of OS existing in his descendants would be described by that same estrangement. And I see that estrangement in evidence all over the world. And, if the purpose of our faith is to dissolve this estrangement, to reconcile man with God, a huge part of which is in coming to recognize and embrace God’s forgiveness, generally as we come to acknowledge our estrangement from Him, together with recognizing our sin and accepting that forgiveness, then how is God’s unconditional forgiveness at odds with the doctrine of OS?

So, the contradiction does not lie in anything you said here, except the whole idea of “estrangement” in the first place. If God had forgiven Adam for eating the fruit from the tree, not holding such defiance against Adam and Eve, but accepting such behavior as a manifestation of a creature with a desire for freedom (autonomy), a capacity to doubt, a desire to be in control, an insatiable curiosity, a desire for as much power and status possible, and the capacity to block out everything, including empathy and even the conscience itself when overcome with desire which He Himself created.

In the story, banishment from Eden was imposed by God. Does God banish people? No, God forgives unconditionally. Does our conscience banish us, does it impose feelings of negativity on the self and others? Yes. This is why I prefer the idea that this part of the creation story is one about the acquisition of conscience. It is interesting that the story does not have God simply handing man the knowledge of good and evil. The reason I think this is so is that in having a conscience, we are subject to a lot of other issues that you have so clearly pointed out. Shame is a function of the conscience.

We have this sort of “love/hate” relationship with our own consciences. We are guided by it, but shame is a pain, and rules inhibit our freedom. The net effect of the conscience is good and essential.

 

[fhansen]

So, the contradiction does not lie in anything you said here, except the whole idea of “estrangement” in the first place. If God had forgiven Adam for eating the fruit from the tree, not holding such defiance against Adam and Eve, but accepting such behavior as a manifestation of a creature with a desire for freedom (autonomy), a capacity to doubt, a desire to be in control, an insatiable curiosity, a desire for as much power and status possible, and the capacity to block out everything, including empathy and even the conscience itself when overcome with desire which He Himself created.

In the story, banishment from Eden was imposed by God. Does God banish people? No, God forgives unconditionally. Does our conscience banish us, does it impose feelings of negativity on the self and others? Yes. This is why I prefer the idea that this part of the creation story is one about the acquisition of conscience. It is interesting that the story does not have God simply handing man the knowledge of good and evil. The reason I think this is so is that in having a conscience, we are subject to a lot of other issues that you have so clearly pointed out. Shame is a function of the conscience.

We have this sort of “love/hate” relationship with our own consciences. We are guided by it, but shame is a pain, and rules inhibit our freedom. The net effect of the conscience is good and essential.

The Catechism teaches that man is divided even with *himself *as a result of the first sin-that’s where the estrangement occurs:
**"I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within. **St Augustine
Do you see any evidence for this division in our world-in the activities of and relationships between humans? Where did this love/hate relationship you speak of come from?

Another question: If a person jumps off a cliff and dies, believing they’ll live, did their action kill them, or did gravity do so? Did the universe, with its simple rules (laws of physics) do the deed, pronouncing its judgment of death on the foolish person, or would we say the person exiled* themselves* to the netherworld? I think we could view the story of the first sin and its consequences from that perspective.