Orignal Sin

[jonfawkes]

Granny I read the CCC and the fall still seems like bad parenting on God’s part. If I leave my child alone in a room with a knife and say don’t touch it, it’s dangerous and will hurt you. I more than he really know the danger of the knife. If he cuts himself I could blame him because he disobeyed me and The act of cutting was his OR I could realize that leaving a child in a room with a knife was a dumb thing to do and the real fault lies with me as a parent for not protecting my child from danger.

The CCC says this fall was good because it leads us to having Christ enter the world as the second Adam. I see this as God feels that he needs to make it up to humans because the fall was his failure not ours wich is what a good parent would do. BUT It flies in the face of the notion of a omniscient and omnipotent God. If I abandon that notion it makes sense. I love my children but sometimes fail them but it’s not for lack of love.

 

[larkin31]

Your reasoning has been shown to be faulty. Therefore your assertion of irrationality is itself irrational.

No one has analyzed my “reasoning,” including you. All that has been said is that it is “not Catholic”–which is not an analysis of reasoning.

 

[larkin31]

Granny I read the CCC and the fall still seems like bad parenting on God’s part. If I leave my child alone in a room with a knife and say don’t touch it, it’s dangerous and will hurt you. I more than he really know the danger of the knife. If he cuts himself I could blame him because he disobeyed me and The act of cutting was his OR I could realize that leaving a child in a room with a knife was a dumb thing to do and the real fault lies with me as a parent for not protecting my child from danger.

The CCC says this fall was good because it leads us to having Christ enter the world as the second Adam. I see this as God feels that he needs to make it up to humans because the fall was his failure not ours wich is what a good parent would do. BUT It flies in the face of the notion of a omniscient and omnipotent God. If I abandon that notion it makes sense. I love my children but sometimes fail them but it’s not for lack of love.

I think that the story in Genesis of Eden and the Fall clearly shows that God is not omniscient. He is very powerful, but not omnipresent and not omniscient.

 

[jonfawkes]

I agree that some of it reads that way but that’s not the catholic teaching. If there is a power greater than God then who or what is the ultimate power? It makes YHWH one god of many.

 

[fhansen]

I think the story of creation and the fall can be looked at in a slightly different way without straying from Catholic teaching. Through the fall all mankind became Prodigal Sons, separated from a father they’ve become only dimly aware of, if at all, and even preferring to keep things that way if and when they do become aware of Him, at least until they learn their need for Him again.

Should God have given man free will if He knew that, with it, man would stray? The answer can be “yes” if He also knew that man would eventually, with His help, come to his senses and return to Him. Perhaps human wills must be formed/molded/educated. So what? Is our existence so bad that we can’t have some patience, having faith that there’s a bigger plan to it all? Not only does God put us in this situation but remember that everyday humans procreate children into this world, knowing they’re destined to experience at least some degree of evil, suffering, and ultimately death in any case. There must be at least some naive, rudimentary faith in all that, faith that it’s all worth it, that it’s good in the end.

 

[grannymh]

Granny I read the CCC and the fall still seems like bad parenting on God’s part.
The CCC says this fall was good because it leads us to having Christ enter the world as the second Adam.

From granny’s post 137
“My last suggestion is to encourage you to study these along with studying the Catechism references. If you do not wish to share the actual Catechism statements which trouble you, that is your choice. However, in that case, there is no way I can continue to respond to your posts.”

Way back I asked where are your ideas in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This Catechism is the current universal one and not the Baltimore Catechism you linked in Post 28. So as to avoid confusion, I have consistently linked to the current universal Catechism.

Giving general statements regarding your concerns about the Catholic teaching of Adam and Original Sin is fine at the beginning of any discussion. And I and others have responded in good faith.

However, we are now at the point where it is crucial that I read exactly what you are reading which means we have to be on the same page in the same book. Link:www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Therefore, whenever you feel comfortable in citing the Catechism statements which trouble you, I will read what you are reading plus below and above so that we can discuss it intelligently. Until then, from my personal position, there is really no more ways to respond to your posts.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[jonfawkes]

The CCC makes some Presuppositions that I don’t share, so it’s hard to get past it. Namely that any act of God is inherently good. That the fall was inherently good. That free will is inherently good. That man was solely responsible for the fall. Everything that follows is how it is a expression of God’s love and infinite wisdom.

See my example of poor parenting. post 141

 

[grannymh]

The CCC makes some Presuppositions that I don’t share, so it’s hard to get past it. Namely that any act of God is inherently good. That the fall was inherently good. That free will is inherently good. That man was solely responsible for the fall. Everything that follows is how it is a expression of God’s love and infinite wisdom.

See my example of poor parenting. post 141

When posts are flying like owls (Harry Potter) it is easy to miss one. Please refer to my response in post 146 and references in post 137. Thank you.

 

[jonfawkes]

TheCCC states that the greater good from the fall is the coming of the Christ. I’m notconvinced of this. It is an assumption on the part of the CCC. Adam was in a state of grace before the fall. Why have us fall just to save us? It seems self serving act on the part of God - “see how much I love you I fixed it” - well why’d you let it break in the first place. To get back to a parenting example "see I got you this great expensive gift that was really hard to get , it’s ok that I forgot your birthday " seems to be the sentiment - I still see the fault lies with God not man for the fall. It was bad parenting on God’s part. So to say it stems form goodness or love still strikes me as hollow.

 

[larkin31]

I agree that some of it reads that way but that’s not the catholic teaching. If there is a power greater than God then who or what is the ultimate power? It makes YHWH one god of many.

I don’t think that Genesis suggests that there is a greater power or greater god than the Hebrew God, only that God does not actually know all and that God is not present everywhere at all times. And, yes, this is not Catholic teaching.

 

[jonfawkes]

No I’m doing it by extension - If He’s not all powerful then there must be a higher power that He is subject to.

 

[grannymh]

TheCCC states that the greater good from the fall is the coming of the Christ. I’m notconvinced of this.

You really do need to read the whole CCC paragraph and the accompanying ones. Then go back to the paragraphs regarding Adam.

If you will check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, you will find out that the actual original sin committed by Adam resulted in serious consequences.
You will also find out the difference between Adam’s sin which became a contracted sin and our own personal sins which, depending on their seriousness, can land us willingly and freely in hell.

The greater good is not coming from sin itself even though God permits evil; the greater good comes from God Himself Who did not abandon Adam’s future descendents. One needs to remember that Adam’s free and willing choice of action will continue to play out in our own lives. Sin did increase. With the promise of reconciliation, God’s grace abounded all the more.

As for the rest of the post, it is repetition and not actual statements from the Catechism. Thus, I cannot respond.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Luke 23: 33-43

 

[jonfawkes]

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,... which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

Why are we to assume that the redeemer is better than the original state of grace?

 

[davidv]

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,... which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

Why are we to assume that the redeemer is better than the original state of grace?

No assumption is needed. The Redeemer is God. There are none greater than He.

 

[jonfawkes]

It’s self referential - the savior was needed to redeem us from the fall - the fall makes the redeemer possible. Circular logic - says nothing

 

[davidv]

It’s self referential - the savior was needed to redeem us from the fall - the fall makes the redeemer possible. Circular logic - says nothing

False, the Redeemer existed before the fall.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; (John (NAB) 1)

There is no circular logic in this.

 

[mdcpensive1]

God says he creates evil - Isaiah 45:6-7. And in Gen He creates the Heavens and the Earth and everything that resides in them. The Devil, People, Angels et al.

You seem to imply that God isn’t omnipotent, that certain things are beyond his control.

He is the creator of everything - even dichotomy. The fact the A&E had to choose to experience love is of God’s making. He didn’t have to make it that way. He could have kept us in grace. There isn’t anything that isn’t of God.

So why make us have to chose to experience love - why can’t we just experience it. If it because of Sin - God make the conditions for us to sin. Opened the door and we stepped in. It’s circular - I don’t see the why of it. Unless God isn’t all powerful ( we can keep him away with sin / fall from grace), or He’s malevolent or negligent to let us Fall or we never fell from grace and are just as God made us. If that is the case there isn’t any need for redemption because we never fell.

You ask some interesting questions but you are not understanding the context of the IS passage you quote in 45:7. If you take the philosophical approach then you can say that a supreme being that is all goodness cannot create anything that is not Him. This is like saying that something can exist and not exist at the same time. It is a falicy of logic.

God created us and the world from nothing but He created us and the world and it was good. We are the ones that screw it up but it is by our misguided choices that we do it. God could have made us love Him but that would not be the best love by forcing us to do it. He gave us free will to have the greatest glory in our choice of loving Him. By giving us the choice He also has to accept the fact that some will not make the best choice.

Just because he is omnicient and knowes all knowledge, past, present and future, doesn’t mean that he overrules our freedom to choose. By our choosing Him freely we give greater glory to that choice of accepting Him as our God in love. The evil or woe in IS 45 you talk about is a permissive evil that is allowed by God to let us wallow in our own faults and errors. However in Rom 8:28 He uses this to give us a way back to Him if we so choose.

 

[CEM5]

Why were we given the ability to sin? How does denying our sinfulness get us closer to God? Wouldn’t giving us a predominant predilection toword the good be better for both of us?

Hello jonfawkes,

God gave us “free will” to choose to love Him and be with Him in “Eden” and have everlasting happiness and life, or to not choose this.

Free will means we have choices, and no one forces us. One cannot have free will without the ability to choose, thus, God gave us EVERYTHING we needed and then some, but this wasn’t enough for Adam and Eve - they wanted more. From their greediness and pride, they choose to be disobedient (thus “sin”) and took what was forbidden to them, knowing the consequences of their choice.

We are always given a choice and must face the consequence of our choices: either good or bad. We are given the grace and strength to resist temptations, but ultimately we have no one to blame for our freely made choices but ourselves. Adam choose to blame God and Eve, and Eve choose to blame the devil rather than face up to and admit their sin.

What would life be like for any of us if we had no free choice? Imprisonment.

 

[CEM5]

Granny I read the CCC and the fall still seems like bad parenting on God’s part. If I leave my child alone in a room with a knife and say don’t touch it, it’s dangerous and will hurt you. I more than he really know the danger of the knife. If he cuts himself I could blame him because he disobeyed me and The act of cutting was his OR I could realize that leaving a child in a room with a knife was a dumb thing to do and the real fault lies with me as a parent for not protecting my child from danger.

The CCC says this fall was good because it leads us to having Christ enter the world as the second Adam. I see this as God feels that he needs to make it up to humans because the fall was his failure not ours wich is what a good parent would do. BUT It flies in the face of the notion of a omniscient and omnipotent God. If I abandon that notion it makes sense. I love my children but sometimes fail them but it’s not for lack of love.

Hi jonfawkes,

Adam and Eve were not children, but adults and were warned of the consequences should they disobey. Thye were blessed with “free will” and “intelligence” so they weren’t ignorant little children. They had EVERYTHING they needed and then some as I explained in an earlier post. When they disobeyed and God questioned them, they did not own up to their sin, but rather, they blamed God and the devil. This is the sin of great pride, and showed no repentence or contrition. They freely chose to believe the words of the devil rather than the words of God who clearly warned them what the consequences of disobedience would be.

 

[larkin31]

No I’m doing it by extension - If He’s not all powerful then there must be a higher power that He is subject to.

I made no comment on the limits of his power (I did not say that he was not omnipotent). I said that in Genesis he is neither omniscient nor omnipresent. And I agreed with you that God appears to have limits in the Genesis account. At least I thought that you were stating as much.