Trying to understand Original Sin

[noorez]

Reuben J:

You have made a realistic observation of the state of the ‘world today’.

When I say ‘world today’, I’m not referring necessarily to ‘modern’ times but times since the departure from the paradise. People continued to commit sins (i.e. Cain’s act of murder).
Reuben J:

…and lived in an ideal world in the paradise of Eden where there is no death, sickness or pain…

Also agreed that upon the decent from the paradise, we lost the benefits of having ‘residence’ there.
Reuben J:

…lack of sanctifying grace that causes man to be like what he is.

Perhaps now it’s harder for me to agree with you. If I were to reword it slightly, I would say that man ‘forgot’ rather then ‘lost’ that ‘sanctifying grace’ (using a catholic term very carefully here) that causes men to be what he is like.

Man forgetting his origin has turned to face only ‘himself’. This selfishness has turned us away from God. Man still has the spiritual means (the light of the divine in his soul) to come to God. However, ‘the intellect’ is also something fundamental to ‘spiritual success’. By forgetting our divine originator, the intellect of man has become darkened. And this darkened intellect is ‘passed on’, not in the hereditary sense but in the sense that we teach people to not to seek ‘enlightenment’ of the intellect. However even those who are given a great deal of knowledge still freely choose disobedience. Take for example Cain perhaps? As a child of Adam and Eve, the ones who committed the first human sin, he should have had a really great example of why sin is bad (it was their sin that resulted in the eviction from the garden)!

I would disagree with the Church’s teaching that something special (death of Christ and baptism) is needed to ‘restore’. Or rather ‘negate the negative’. The negative being the ‘lack of sanctifying grace’. Rather, Islam teaches that man should not forget (in this case ‘negate a positive’) his origin.

 

[mercytruth]

When I say ‘world today’, I’m not referring necessarily to ‘modern’ times but times since the departure from the paradise. People continued to commit sins (i.e. Cain’s act of murder).

Also agreed that upon the decent from the paradise, we lost the benefits of having ‘residence’ there.

Perhaps now it’s harder for me to agree with you. If I were to reword it slightly, I would say that man ‘forgot’ rather then ‘lost’ that ‘sanctifying grace’ (using a catholic term very carefully here) that causes men to be what he is like.

Man forgetting his origin has turned to face only ‘himself’. This selfishness has turned us away from God. Man still has the spiritual means (the light of the divine in his soul) to come to God. However, ‘the intellect’ is also something fundamental to ‘spiritual success’. By forgetting our divine originator, the intellect of man has become darkened. And this darkened intellect is ‘passed on’, not in the hereditary sense but in the sense that we teach people to not to seek ‘enlightenment’ of the intellect. However even those who are given a great deal of knowledge still freely choose disobedience. Take for example Cain perhaps? As a child of Adam and Eve, the ones who committed the first human sin, he should have had a really great example of why sin is bad (it was their sin that resulted in the eviction from the garden)!

I would disagree with the Church’s teaching that something special (death of Christ and baptism) is needed to ‘restore’. Or rather ‘negate the negative’. The negative being the ‘lack of sanctifying grace’. Rather, Islam teaches that man should not forget (in this case ‘negate a positive’) his origin.

I appreciate your thoughtful, respectful and considerate responses regarding this subject. In order to approach the holy Creator of us all, we believe that we need a holy mediator between us and the Almighty.

We are so imperfect while we are sojourning on this earth. There is one who is to be the judge of us all because he lived a perfect life here on earth, and has ransomed us from the power of sin and death. He is the resurrection and the life, and he is the promise of our own resurrection in the life to come.

May the peace of the Creator be with you

micah

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

 

[Reuben_J]

When I say ‘world today’, I’m not referring necessarily to ‘modern’ times but times since the departure from the paradise. People continued to commit sins (i.e. Cain’s act of murder).

Also agreed that upon the decent from the paradise, we lost the benefits of having ‘residence’ there.

Perhaps now it’s harder for me to agree with you. If I were to reword it slightly, I would say that man ‘forgot’ rather then ‘lost’ that ‘sanctifying grace’ (using a catholic term very carefully here) that causes men to be what he is like.

Man forgetting his origin has turned to face only ‘himself’. This selfishness has turned us away from God. Man still has the spiritual means (the light of the divine in his soul) to come to God. However, ‘the intellect’ is also something fundamental to ‘spiritual success’. By forgetting our divine originator, the intellect of man has become darkened. And this darkened intellect is ‘passed on’, not in the hereditary sense but in the sense that we teach people to not to seek ‘enlightenment’ of the intellect. However even those who are given a great deal of knowledge still freely choose disobedience. Take for example Cain perhaps? As a child of Adam and Eve, the ones who committed the first human sin, he should have had a really great example of why sin is bad (it was their sin that resulted in the eviction from the garden)!

I would disagree with the Church’s teaching that something special (death of Christ and baptism) is needed to ‘restore’. Or rather ‘negate the negative’. The negative being the ‘lack of sanctifying grace’. Rather, Islam teaches that man should not forget (in this case ‘negate a positive’) his origin.

Thanks for your response. If you’re speaking from the position of Islam which I suppose you are, then you will disagree with Catholicism on this topic. I appreciate that difference. Looking at the title of the thread, you may at least get an idea of Catholic belief on this from some of the posts here. I have no more to add at this moment but will return if I have forgotten something that I can add to the discussion.

Peace.

 

[1roman]

I’m guessing that by “YAWAH” you mean the tetragrammaton, “YHWH”, commonly interpreted as “Yahweh” and replaced in most English translations of the Bible with “the LORD” (or “GOD” if the actual title “Lord” is used before the tetragrammaton).

The ordinary Catholic position is that Muslims believe in the same God as we do but hold grave errors regarding Him. But let’s not divert the discussion to that old argument.

Why I Left Islam-Ex-Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat(Part 1 of 2)

Biography of Walid Shoebat:

Born in Bethlehem of Judea, Walid’s grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd’s Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler.

Walid’s great grandfather, Abdullah Ali Awad-Allah, was also a fighter and close associate of both Abdul Qader and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who led the Palestinians against Israel. Walid lived through and witnessed Israels Six Day War while living in Jericho.

As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem’s central prison for incitement and violence against Israel.

After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities.

In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy.

Driven by a deep passion to heal his own soul, and to bring the truth about the Jews and Israel to the world, Walid shed his former life and his work as a software engineer and set out to tirelessly bring the cause of Israel to tens of thousands of people throughout the world: churches and synagogues, civic groups, government leaders and media.

Walid has written several online books including “Dear Muslim, Let Me Tell You Why I Believed” and "Israel, And The World’s Mock Trial, where he exposes anti-Semitism and the hatred of Jews in both the Islamic Christian and secular worlds.

Walid is an American citizen and lives in the USA with his wife and children, under this assumed name.

“Why I Left Islam-Ex-Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat” Part 1 of 2 From RealPeaceOfIslam

 

[draco_cupri]

When I say ‘world today’, I’m not referring necessarily to ‘modern’ times but times since the departure from the paradise. People continued to commit sins (i.e. Cain’s act of murder).

Also agreed that upon the decent from the paradise, we lost the benefits of having ‘residence’ there.

Perhaps now it’s harder for me to agree with you. If I were to reword it slightly, I would say that man ‘forgot’ rather then ‘lost’ that ‘sanctifying grace’ (using a catholic term very carefully here) that causes men to be what he is like.

Man forgetting his origin has turned to face only ‘himself’. This selfishness has turned us away from God. Man still has the spiritual means (the light of the divine in his soul) to come to God. However, ‘the intellect’ is also something fundamental to ‘spiritual success’. By forgetting our divine originator, the intellect of man has become darkened. And this darkened intellect is ‘passed on’, not in the hereditary sense but in the sense that we teach people to not to seek ‘enlightenment’ of the intellect. However even those who are given a great deal of knowledge still freely choose disobedience. Take for example Cain perhaps? As a child of Adam and Eve, the ones who committed the first human sin, he should have had a really great example of why sin is bad (it was their sin that resulted in the eviction from the garden)!

I would disagree with the Church’s teaching that something special (death of Christ and baptism) is needed to ‘restore’. Or rather ‘negate the negative’. The negative being the ‘lack of sanctifying grace’. Rather, Islam teaches that man should not forget (in this case ‘negate a positive’) his origin.

Hi noorez,

I did not recognize it about Mohammedism until reading your post, but, if you are representing its thought correctly, then evidently it clings to the error of Pelagius.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

I mean no offense to you when I use the term, “Mohammedism” to describe your religion. What I mean by it is those who strive to practice the true Islam by following the teachings of Mohammed and excluding all others. Thus, what most normally call Muslims, I call Mohammedans, since they hold to the teaching that Mohammed’s transmission was somehow privileged or definitive for all time. The real meaning of Islam is simply Submission to Allah, and Allah is the Arab word for God. “Allah” simply means, “The God,” meaning, the one and only God, and if Islam means submission of one’s individual will to the Almighty Will of the One God, then I am a Muslim just as much as you are. Most of us are Muslims here, in the original signification of that word. Islam as the religion of Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and King David, and Jesus, means the religion of willing submission to the Will of God, so how can anyone exclude faithful Catholics from that?

God is larger than the Arab tribes, and God is larger than Mohammed’s brain. God fills the Universe, so it seems a bit premature to imagine that the True Islam can really be summed up in Mohammedism. The tenacity with which many cling to that one transmission, excluding all others, smacks to me of Fideism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Anyway, I know that some of what I have said to you here is controversial, some of it would probably cost me my head in certain parts of the world! But I hope you can take it in the spirit in which it is offered, namely in the spirit of Love.

Peace and Love!

Draco Cupri.

 

[murraymuzz]

1. Teaching of the Church
   
   Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine Decree “Super peccato originali” (Sess. V; 1546), which in part follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s loss of the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem peccatorum). D 789–791.

1. Proof from the Sources of Faith

a) Scriptural proof

The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially Ps. 50:7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did my mother conceive me.” Job 14:4 (according to Vulg.): “Who can make him clean that is conceived unclean?” Both passages speak of an inborn sinfulness whether this be understood in the sense of habitual sin or merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal connection with the sin of Adam. The causal connection between the death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death) is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25:33; Wis. 2:24.

The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5:12–21, in which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men. V. 12: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death, and so sin passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (in quo omnes paccaverunt—ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) … 19. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.”

Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (108–109). St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that he lost for himself alone, and not for us also, the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost; or that he, defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema; inasmuch as he contradicts the apostle, who says: By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Buckley, T. A. (1851). The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (22). London: Geroge Routledge and Co.

 

[noorez]

Hi noorez,

I did not recognize it about Mohammedism until reading your post, but, if you are representing its thought correctly, then evidently it clings to the error of Pelagius.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

I mean no offense to you when I use the term, “Mohammedism” to describe your religion. What I mean by it is those who strive to practice the true Islam by following the teachings of Mohammed and excluding all others. Thus, what most normally call Muslims, I call Mohammedans, since they hold to the teaching that Mohammed’s transmission was somehow privileged or definitive for all time. The real meaning of Islam is simply Submission to Allah, and Allah is the Arab word for God. “Allah” simply means, “The God,” meaning, the one and only God, and if Islam means submission of one’s individual will to the Almighty Will of the One God, then I am a Muslim just as much as you are. Most of us are Muslims here, in the original signification of that word. Islam as the religion of Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and King David, and Jesus, means the religion of willing submission to the Will of God, so how can anyone exclude faithful Catholics from that?

God is larger than the Arab tribes, and God is larger than Mohammed’s brain. God fills the Universe, so it seems a bit premature to imagine that the True Islam can really be summed up in Mohammedism. The tenacity with which many cling to that one transmission, excluding all others, smacks to me of Fideism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Anyway, I know that some of what I have said to you here is controversial, some of it would probably cost me my head in certain parts of the world! But I hope you can take it in the spirit in which it is offered, namely in the spirit of Love.

Peace and Love!

Draco Cupri.

With the hopes that I do not get off topic in this forum:

I would most certainly agree with you on your statements. ‘Islam’ (the religion founded upon the teachings of Muhammad) cannot be thought of separately from the previous Abrahamic religions and their scriptures (as much as many will want to think this way). Indeed I would call a Jew or a Christian a muslim (I use a lower-case ‘m’ to mean all who submit to God to differentiate it from a capital ‘M’ Muslim who belongs to an identifiable religious community). The Quran cannot be understood separately from the Torah, Psalms and Gospel. The Quran should rightly be thought of as part of a continuity of revelation rather then a standalone revelation. Where a ‘Muslim’ might begin to disagree with a Christian or a Jew is when it comes to the interpretations of these scriptures (including textual authenticity). While I believe it is okay to disagree on scriptural interpretations, I do not believe at all that dialogue should not exist between these communities. There are important connections between these faith groups and we must work to strengthen the ties in the ‘Greater Ummah’ (the united community of jews, christian, muslims and all those who submit to the one true God).

 

[noorez]

I have a follow up question then (hopefully not silly one).

Baptism is said to wash away the original sin. Does the act of baptism then move a human from the fallen state back into the original state of grace (pre-fall)?

Also, since original sin is no longer present after baptism, why is it then, a baptized parents’ child would be born with that defect of original sin?

 

[fhansen]

I have a follow up question then (hopefully not silly one).

Baptism is said to wash away the original sin. Does the act of baptism then move a human from the fallen state back into the original state of grace (pre-fall)?

Also, since original sin is no longer present after baptism, why is it then, a baptized parents’ child would be born with that defect of original sin?

Baptism restores the innocence Adam lost but not all the gifts he was given. Its up to us to struggle against sin, with Gods help, for the purpose of ultimately triumphing over it, which Adam obviously hadn’t accomplished at last count. OS is transferred via propagation regardless of the parent’s state because all are descendants of Adam. The proof of this sin is the very fact that all humans are born without direct, intimate knowledge of, and love for, God, which is what mans injustice consists of. And this is why faith is so important: it’s the first step in restored relationship of man with God, the first step of restored justice. And Baptism is the first formal act or expression of that faith.

 

[noorez]

This raises further questions for me: (i hope i’m now not going out of scope from the original discussion).

If according to the catholic teaching (i’m not sure if i should pick on the western or the eastern understanding so I’ll just choose roman teaching as this is the one i am most exposed to), Adam had sanctifying gifts: no original sin or fallen nature to be a cause of sin, and no lack of grace (or lack of ‘holy spirit’) which kept the ‘lower urges of men aligned to divine will and purpose’, why is it that he sinned?

Although, I know the simple answer would most probably be: “Because satan suggested this to him and Adam chose to listen”. Holding this in mind: … if in heaven, we will be restored to the original state that Adam was in (“sanctifying grace and all”), does not the possibility that some can disobey and cause the entire fiasco again?

…again I can hear the answer coming in, “but satan will no longer be there to tempt”… however it feels as if this answer will not be satisfactory. For even satan (in both islamic and christian versions of him) was once a being of extremely high eminence and yet he chose to disobey and turn away from God. (without a tempter).

Thank you for your time once again! Most appreciate the help I get in my many ponderings.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

As far as I’ve come to understand the doctrine from the Orthodox church,we inherit the fallen and corrupted nature of Adam. Perhaps that is what is meant by Sinful nature. We have a nack for sinning and Christ came primarily to correct that which was corrupted.

 

[fhansen]

This raises further questions for me: (i hope i’m now not going out of scope from the original discussion).

If according to the catholic teaching (i’m not sure if i should pick on the western or the eastern understanding so I’ll just choose roman teaching as this is the one i am most exposed to), Adam had sanctifying gifts: no original sin or fallen nature to be a cause of sin, and no lack of grace (or lack of ‘holy spirit’) which kept the ‘lower urges of men aligned to divine will and purpose’, why is it that he sinned?

Although, I know the simple answer would most probably be: “Because satan suggested this to him and Adam chose to listen”. Holding this in mind: … if in heaven, we will be restored to the original state that Adam was in (“sanctifying grace and all”), does not the possibility that some can disobey and cause the entire fiasco again?

…again I can hear the answer coming in, “but satan will no longer be there to tempt”… however it feels as if this answer will not be satisfactory. For even satan (in both islamic and christian versions of him) was once a being of extremely high eminence and yet he chose to disobey and turn away from God. (without a tempter).

Thank you for your time once again! Most appreciate the help I get in my many ponderings.

Yes, it’s a good question-you ask some really tough ones! But it’s also really the same question as this: If God created everything good (which He did, because He’s good), then how is it that sin/evil ever entered the world? And the answer is admittedly not an easy one. Adam sinned because he willed to sin. Beyond that fact is speculation. But great as he may have been, Adam nonetheless unavoidably lacked God’s perfect wisdom. We’re here now to gain what Adam apparently lacked in Eden: the wisdom to recognize our utter need for and dependency on God.

 

[SteveVH]

We’re here now to gain what Adam apparently lacked in Eden: the wisdom to recognize our utter need for God.

That pretty much sums it up. The serpent placed doubt in the minds of Adam and Eve. Why couldn’t they eat from the tree of knowledge? What was God holding out on them? We don’t recognize our need for God because we lost our trust in him and turned inward to ourselves. Adam and Eve desired to be like God, but apart from God. We are many times no different, placing our trust in ourselves rather than in the one who created us.