Orignal Sin

[grannymh]

The tree was the means - I can say don’t write on the walls but unless I give you a pen there is no danger. God being omniscient knew the outcome so had to provide the “pen”.

In order to apply writing on walls to Adam, you would have to specify what writing on the walls actually refers to. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, specifies what the tree/apple actually refers to.

In order to understand Original Sin, one has to completely understand Adam. Without understanding Adam, is probably why there is such a crazy misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

 

[grannymh]

The ability to do so means that we must have the capacity to do so. I can’t dunk a basketball although I wish I could - I have the desire not the means.

Apparently, free will is being misunderstood.

 

[larkin31]

No, he simply gave man free will. The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is one inevitable result of having that gift-the apple is the choice. The Catechism speaks on this:

**396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
**

Isn’t it fairly clear that “apple” is not the right term for the fruit hanging from that tree?

I otherwise agree (that it represents the CC) with this interpretation, and it is one of the reasons that I reject CC teachings. I find the punishing of Adam and Eve with mortality and all of their descendants for eternity with mortality in a scenario rigged for failure to be a twisted, manipulative act. Other churches have other, more theologically reasonable, interpretations. To teach dependency through suffering and death seems un-godly to me, unworthy of respect and worship.

 

[davidv]

Isn’t it fairly clear that “apple” is not the right term for the fruit hanging from that tree?

I otherwise agree (that it represents the CC) with this interpretation, and it is one of the reasons that I reject CC teachings. I find the punishing of Adam and Eve with mortality and all of their descendants for eternity with mortality in a scenario rigged for failure to be a twisted, manipulative act. Other churches have other, more theologically reasonable, interpretations. To teach dependency through suffering and death seems un-godly to me, unworthy of respect and worship.

Please document precisely where the Church teaches what is bolded above.

 

[jonfawkes]

No you have to have the ability and
means to make a free choice - I can’t make a free choice to dunk because I don’t have the ability. We have to have the ability and means to sin to actually sin. God provided both with the knowledge of the choice that would be made.

 

[grannymh]

Isn’t it fairly clear that “apple” is not the right term for the fruit hanging from that tree?

I otherwise agree (that it represents the CC) with this interpretation, and it is one of the reasons that I reject CC teachings. I find the punishing of Adam and Eve with mortality and all of their descendants for eternity with mortality in a scenario rigged for failure to be a twisted, manipulative act. Other churches have other, more theologically reasonable, interpretations. To teach dependency through suffering and death seems un-godly to me, unworthy of respect and worship.

Again, in order to understand what happened, one has to go back to the nature of Adam. What also should be considered is the extreme seriousness of the fact that Adam was called to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life.

Apparently, the sharing in God’s life is being totally overlooked.
Good thing that Catholicism maintains the complete story.

 

[davidv]

No you have to have the ability and
means to make a free choice - I can’t make a free choice to dunk because I don’t have the ability. We have to have the ability and means to sin to actually sin. God provided both with the knowledge of the choice that would be made.

Why are you confusing freedom with free will?

Or, why do you think they are the same thing?

 

[grannymh]

No you have to have the ability and
means to make a free choice - I can’t make a free choice to dunk because I don’t have the ability. We have to have the ability and means to sin to actually sin. God provided both with the knowledge of the choice that would be made.

Oh dear. This comes from some old threads which totally confused free will. :sad_yes:

 

[jonfawkes]

so what is free will but the choice to share in Gods grace or reject it (sin)?
what is it that I’m missing?

 

[davidv]

so what is free will but the choice to share in Gods grace or reject it (sin)?
what is it that I’m missing?

You have missed much. Like, what the true definition of “free will” as it applies to original sin.

A lot of it has already been presented in prior posts.

 

[fhansen]

Isn’t it fairly clear that “apple” is not the right term for the fruit hanging from that tree?

I otherwise agree (that it represents the CC) with this interpretation, and it is one of the reasons that I reject CC teachings. I find the punishing of Adam and Eve with mortality and all of their descendants for eternity with mortality in a scenario rigged for failure to be a twisted, manipulative act. Other churches have other, more theologically reasonable, interpretations. To teach dependency through suffering and death seems un-godly to me, unworthy of respect and worship.

The bottom line in Catholic teaching is that man simply needs God in order to have life, to have life at all, let alone to have it “more abundantly”-but that man rejected God, by rejecting His will for us, which included our compromised happiness. IOW, to be separated from God, even in the way we are now on this planet, is a type of living death compared to what He desires and has in store for us. Sin is our death, our banishment from the garden, our separation from God-a separation He seeks to reconcile, taking the initiative first of all on Calvary.

 

[larkin31]

Again, in order to understand what happened, one has to go back to the nature of Adam. What also should be considered is the extreme seriousness of the fact that Adam was called to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life.

What do you mean by “God’s life”? Where/when was Adam called to this? Denying him access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a denial of part of “God’s life,” was it not?

 

[larkin31]

The bottom line in Catholic teaching is that man simply needs God in order to have life, to have life at all, let alone to have it “more abundantly”-but that man rejected God, by rejecting His will for us, which included our compromised happiness. IOW, to be separated from God, even in the way we are now on this planet, is a type of living death compared to what He desires and has in store for us. Sin is our death, our banishment from the garden, our separation from God-a separation He seeks to reconcile, taking the initiative first of all on Calvary.

When did Adam or Eve “reject God”? I don’t see that in the story at all. They disobeyed a prohibition on seeking a form of knowledge. This is not, in my view, a “rejection of God.” It is not a denial of God. Disobedience is a rejection of authority, but that is not a “rejection of God.” Adam and Eve were not atheists, were not religious rebels, were not heretics. And certainly their descendants were not automatically these things either, not logically nor empirically. They sought a form of divine knowledge that God placed in their full view but forbade them and made dangerous. They failed a test that God knew (according to teachings) that they would fail (I actually think that the God figure in the OT had no idea that they would fail. I disagree strongly with the “omniscient God” that is projected back into Genesis). To fail a rigged test is not to “reject God.” These are not equivalents–not theologically, not logically.

 

[jonfawkes]

You have missed much. Like, what the true definition of “free will” as it applies to original sin.

A lot of it has already been presented in prior posts.

what’s my major omission?

to say the bottom line is that we need god is a non answer we are his creation of. course we are dependent on him - doesn’t address OS

 

[grannymh]

so what is free will but the choice to share in Gods grace or reject it (sin)?
what is it that I’m missing?

In my humble opinion, the blame is being put on God.

 

[grannymh]

When did Adam or Eve “reject God”? I don’t see that in the story at all. They disobeyed a prohibition on seeking a form of knowledge. This is not, in my view, a “rejection of God.” It is not a denial of God. Disobedience is a rejection of authority, but that is not a “rejection of God.” Adam and Eve were not atheists, were not religious rebels, were not heretics. And certainly their descendants were not automatically these things either, not logically nor empirically. They sought a form of divine knowledge that God placed in their full view but forbade them and made dangerous. They failed a test that God knew (according to teachings) that they would fail (I actually think that the God figure in the OT had no idea that they would fail. I disagree strongly with the “omniscient God” that is projected back into Genesis). To fail a rigged test is not to “reject God.” These are not equivalents–not theologically, not logically.

When one understands human nature of Adam and what his relationship was with God according to Catholic teaching, then it is easy to see how Adam rejected God and chose himself over God.

 

[davidv]

what’s my major omission?

You have omitted scholarly consideration of the information provided.

to say the bottom line is that we need god is a non answer we are his creation of. course we are dependent on him - doesn’t address OS

Who said this is was the bottom line?

Your arguments are not making any sense.

 

[fhansen]

When did Adam or Eve “reject God”? I don’t see that in the story at all. They disobeyed a prohibition on seeking a form of knowledge. This is not, in my view, a “rejection of God.” It is not a denial of God. Disobedience is a rejection of authority, but that is not a “rejection of God.” Adam and Eve were not atheists, were not religious rebels, were not heretics. And certainly their descendants were not automatically these things either, not logically nor empirically. They sought a form of divine knowledge that God placed in their full view but forbade them and made dangerous. They failed a test that God knew (according to teachings) that they would fail (I actually think that the God figure in the OT had no idea that they would fail. I disagree strongly with the “omniscient God” that is projected back into Genesis). To fail a rigged test is not to “reject God.” These are not equivalents–not theologically, not logically.

The Catechism states that, with the original sin, faith died in mans heart. By rejecting Gods’ authority, they effectively rejected God as their God, becoming their own “god”.

 

[grannymh]

What do you mean by “God’s life”? Where/when was Adam called to this? Denying him access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a denial of part of “God’s life,” was it not?

Adam was called to share in God’s life the moment his nature was created as spiritual soul/material body. This is why Catholics refer to the human person as being created in the Image of God. Being in God’s image happens because Adam was spiritual because of his nature. A spiritual creature, Adam could live in God’s friendship only in free submission to God

Catholic teaching is that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Adam, from day one, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-398.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teachings **regarding Adam, Human Nature, God as Creator, Friendship with God, and the Meaning and Effects of Original Sin **
are found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

 

[grannymh]

When did Adam or Eve “reject God”? I don’t see that in the story at all. They disobeyed a prohibition on seeking a form of knowledge. This is not, in my view, a “rejection of God.” It is not a denial of God. Disobedience is a rejection of authority, but that is not a “rejection of God.” Adam and Eve were not atheists, were not religious rebels, were not heretics. And certainly their descendants were not automatically these things either, not logically nor empirically. They sought a form of divine knowledge that God placed in their full view but forbade them and made dangerous. They failed a test that God knew (according to teachings) that they would fail (I actually think that the God figure in the OT had no idea that they would fail. I disagree strongly with the “omniscient God” that is projected back into Genesis). To fail a rigged test is not to “reject God.” These are not equivalents–not theologically, not logically.

This is not an example of Catholic teachings.