Was sexual PERVERSION the original sin?

[Sunflower15]

Good. Explain it to us in words not used in the paragraph, so that you reflect true understanding – not the ability to be a tape recorder.

Geez…transmitted by propagation means by reproduction. We are ONE creation, ONE species, ONE human family, so whatever changes our nature undergoes, it is passed down as we reproduce. Just like everything else.

Contrast this to the angelic beings, for example, who are each individually created by God -since they do NOT reproduce- and by definition EACH is a distinct and unique creation and species. Whatever happens to one, does NOT have to happen to the others.

 

[bookgirl32]

The Catholic Church is God’s preferred conduit to salvation. It has defects, but it’s still God’s preferred conduit. “He never promised us a rose garden.”

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. People within the Church have defects, of course. But the infallible truth of the Church has no defect.

It talked about sin in a first grade kind of way; we still got it wrong, didn’t we? Many people in this site still believe that there really was a place where mosquitoes did not suck blood from the two humans!!!

Meaning the Garden? The Church does not require us to accept Genesis as literal, but it also doesn’t tell us that it is not. Of course, if you’re looking at it as a hypothetical situation, in which the theological truths contained therein were never real, then of course you couldn’t accept it as literal.

Now, please read what I actually wrote. “Entertaining a near occasion of sin” is a sin. You’ve made a decision to “dance with the devil,” a little bit. Sorry. That’s a sin.

She could’ve disobeyed the command without the temptation from Satan. God had already told her not to touch it. If you carry your line of thinking far enough, then God created the near occasion and entrapped her into it. Which is, I guess, what you’re saying. But God doesn’t create sin.

You’re wrong. The boss said, “DON’T DO X.” Everything Eve did dancing in that direction was sinful. She even reflects that knowledge, when she rells the serpent, that they can’t even touch the fruit without sinning. Hypothetical Eve knew more about occasions of sin than you.

Then can you say that in agreeing to at the very least listen to the devil in the desert (we know He did, He replied to Him) that Jesus sinned? It would be the exact same situation. Is the exact same situation, actually, since Jesus is the new Adam. He listened to the devil, heard what He had to say, exposed Himself to the temptation. Did He sin?

For someone so quick to judge me as essentially non-Catholic, you don’t know much about your Catholic Bible…

Maybe I didn’t make my question clear. I know the passage and what happened. My question was what did you mean by your statement, how did you interpret the animals not to be suitable partners to Adam?

I humbly disagree.

Question: Why is monogenesis important? Answer: To verify that we inherit from our parents the same sin-proneness they had.

I know you disagree. It is in contradiction with previously defined dogma. The Church maintains that God did not originally create us “sin-prone”.

Ask around. You’re wrong. Almost no Catholic understands that Purgatory is a cleansing to enable you to stand before a special presence of God, which would otherwise find you intolerable.

That is such a broad, generalistic statement. It also assumes that most Catholics don’t know very much about their faith and were poorly catechized. While it may be true for some Catholics, I just think it’s unfounded to say “most”. It just goes along with your picture of a very weak and flawed Church, not the people in the Church being weak and flawed.

The story portrays them as being in God’s presence, talking to Him face-to-face, AFTER the sin but BEFORE being kicked out, not because that is theologically sound, but because the story is fiction – making the point of ineligibility to be in the divine presence in a slow, first-grade fashion.

Even if it is taught in a slow, first-grade fashion, why would that change what the truth was?

You don’t have to care. You can be cold. Go ahead. I have seen coldness in response to fellowship before.

But I will read what you have to say, friend.

What I uncharitably said was meant to convey that your aunt does not have any impact on the truth of the Church. Yes, there are only a few dogmatically defined verses. This does not mean that the Church does not hold the authoritative interpretation of the entire Bible. This is an argument I just heard a few days ago from a Reformed Christian follower of Calvin. Again, you’re starting to sound more and more like him. Are you sure you’re not leaning that way?

Maybe its better if I gave you a case in point.

Before the year 1950 A.D., did the Holy Spirit declare the Assumption of Mary to be an essential part of the belief of evety Catholic?

Was the dogma of the Assumption specifically contradictory to already defined dogma? Was it contradictory to well known doctrine? Do you see it as a “newly revealed” truth in the middle of 1950? You know that for something to be defined as dogma there has to be evidence that it has been, at least implicitly, a part of Church teaching from the beginning. The definition of the Assumption did not happen until 1950, this doesn’t mean it wasn’t true before 1950 and then it wasn’t part of Church doctrine. Not being officially defined dogma doesn’t make official Church doctrine untrue.

I disagree. Not only was St. Athanasius alone, but the Pope affirmatively condemned him.

Under diress.
It was “Athanasiuis against the world.”

He won.

He was simply the beginning point of the sensum fidelium.

I believe that I am.

How many people called Athanasius arrogant, do you think?

This could be an entirely different thread, and will throw this thread completely off topic. But I will say that if you are Athanasius, and Athanasius was defending the Church against the Arian heresy (which was never dogmatically defined), then you are effectively calling already defined dogma, that of original sin, heresy. How does that work?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think Judas was quite enough preparation for that.

What more does one need to get the point?

File your Complaint with the Holy Spirit, friend.

He has Peter (1) being told by Christ, “Get behind me, you Satan!!!”? (a fierce condemnation); He has Peter (2) sinking into the water, from lack of faith, when Peter tries top walk on water; finally, He has Peter (3) betraying Christ 3 times despite Christ’s prediction that this would happen.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Just when I thought you were so nice on another thread. I’m sorry to put you on ignore now. But, I must after reading this offensive post.

If you only knew what I do everyday. You have no idea what this post was like reading.

I often wonder if christians would do what I do. Oh, that’s right- they don’t in my little spot of the world and that’s why I am doing it. So many of you here in Chicago, yet none helping me in what I do.

Nice knowing you, and your preconcieved opinions that are unfounded and rude.

Then, it might be a good idea to start doing something about it, no? At least begin with helping others…
Jesus said he would judge us by whether or not we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, visited the sick or imprisoned, etc…

An agnostic can do those things too, no?
And, you never know…ONLY God knows!
Purgatory is the ‘foyer’ to Heaven, where we go until we are able to stand being in the Presence of God…

We are in pain here, and we ask questions, why wouldn’t they? And, they can pray for us, but not for themselves…that’s why we pray for them, and some of them might pray for us while in Purgatory and once they finally arrive in Heaven as well.

 

[StrawberryJam]

File your Complaint with the Holy Spirit, friend.

He has Peter (1) being told by Christ, “Get behind me, you Satan!!!”? (a fierce condemnation); He has Peter (2) sinking into the water, from lack of faith, when Peter tries top walk on water; finally, He has Peter (3) betraying Christ 3 times despite Christ’s prediction that this would happen.

Did Peter sell Jesus off for some paltry pieces of silver?

How do you compare human frailty with outright criminal actions?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Did Peter sell Jesus off for some paltry pieces of silver?

How do you compare human frailty with outright criminal actions?

Peter did it to protect his own tail – he functionally traded-in Jesus’ life for his own safety THREE times a countable number of MINUTES after he BOASTED that he would never such a thing and Jesus FOREWARNED him that he would functionally essentially do precisely what Judas was doing.

Re-read the Passion…Christ warned Peter that one would betray Him. Peter boastrd, “Oooohhh! I’d NEVER do that!!!” (What? What Judas was doing, right?) And Jesus forewarned him, “Wake up, Petey! Tonight, despite my warning at this moment, you’re going to be guilty of essentially the SAME THING, you hypocrite!!!”

The essential equivalency of what Judas did and what Peter did is the essence of Jesus’ warning to Peter.

I don’t think that it is philosophically valid to portray Judas as “essentially more evil than Peter.” The ESSENCE of Jesus’ meaning to Peter was, “You’re going to be just as criminal!”

Note that Judas did not have the benefit of being forewarned in the brutally clear fashion Peter was forewarned.

Whose sin was worse?

I elect Peter.

That’s why Peter wept bitterly, afterwards.

 

[crazzeto]

Peter did it to protect his own tail – he functionally traded-in Jesus’ life for his own safety THREE times a countable number of MINUTES after he BOASTED that he would never such a thing and Jesus FOREWARNED him that he would functionally essentially do precisely what Judas was doing.

Re-read the Passion…Christ warned Peter that one would betray Him. Peter boastrd, “Oooohhh! I’d NEVER do that!!!” (What? What Judas was doing, right?) And Jesus forewarned him, “Wake up, Petey! Tonight, despite my warning at this moment, you’re going to be guilty of essentially the SAME THING, you hypocrite!!!”

The essential equivalency of what Judas did and what Peter did is the essence of Jesus’ warning to Peter.

I don’t think that it is philosophically valid to portray Judas as “essentially more evil than Peter.” The ESSENCE of Jesus’ meaning to Peter was, “You’re going to be just as criminal!”

Note that Judas did not have the benefit of being forewarned in the brutally clear fashion Peter was forewarned.

Whose sin was worse?

I elect Peter.

That’s why Peter wept bitterly, afterwards.

Perhaps you need to reread the passion your self, Jesus never told Peter he would betray him:

26 And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus saith to them: You will all be scandalized in my regard this night; for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed. 28 But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. 29 But Peter saith to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, yet not I. 30 And Jesus saith to him: Amen I say to thee, today, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.

31 But he spoke the more vehemently: Although I should die together with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all. 32 And they came to a farm called Gethsemani. And he saith to his disciples: Sit you here, while I pray. 33 And he taketh Peter and James and John with him; and he began to fear and to be heavy. 34 And he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death; stay you here, and watch. 35 And when he was gone forward a little, he fell flat on the ground; and he prayed, that if it might be, the hour might pass from him.

There is a BIG difference between betrayal and denial.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Perhaps you need to reread the passion your self, Jesus never told Peter he would betray him:

There is a BIG difference between betrayal and denial.

I disagree.

My best friend “denied” me, in a way. Let me tell you, it stings deep. It makes a person feel very, very, very betrayed.

You’re wrong.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I disagree.

My best friend “denied” me, in a way. Let me tell you, it stings deep. It makes a person feel very, very, very betrayed.

You’re wrong.

Peter was still with him after he taught the eucharist. Judas was not.

 

[bookgirl32]

Peter was still with him after he taught the eucharist. Judas was not.

I don’t qutie understand what Peter D’s point is anyway. They both sinned. We know for sure that Peter asked for forgiveness. The assumption is that Judas didn’t since he committed suicide, although maybe in the moments before death he also did. The point is, Judas could’ve been Pope had God chosen him, and even what he did would not have affected God’s promise to the Church as far as the Pope’s office goes: to protect it. I’m thinking Peter’s angle is to point out the huge downfallings of Peter to illustrate the “weak” Church (although it’s still God’s “chosen conduit”? Is that what he said?). People are weak. The Church is not. People’s human weaknesses cannot change the fact that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I don’t qutie understand what Peter D’s point is anyway. They both sinned. We know for sure that Peter asked for forgiveness. The assumption is that Judas didn’t since he committed suicide, although maybe in the moments before death he also did. The point is, Judas could’ve been Pope had God chosen him, and even what he did would not have affected God’s promise to the Church as far as the Pope’s office goes: to protect it. I’m thinking Peter’s angle is to point out the huge downfallings of Peter to illustrate the “weak” Church (although it’s still God’s “chosen conduit”? Is that what he said?). People are weak. The Church is not. People’s human weaknesses cannot change the fact that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

I think Peter has some good points, but in the end- he stops short in the big things.

 

[grannymh]

I think Peter has some good points, but in the end- he stops short in the big things.

I love Peter. He gives me hope. If he can make it with all his faults, then I have a chance. Being the first Pope, I know Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church would not have lasted. By the way, I also love Thomas, the doubting apostle.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I love Peter. He gives me hope. If he can make it with all his faults, then I have a chance. Being the first Pope, I know Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church would not have lasted. By the way, I also love Thomas, the doubting apostle.

:blush:

I meant the poster Peter Dawson, not the Saint Peter.

I agree Saint Peter was a man to give hope to all men.
Thomas, is my favorite though.

 

[bookgirl32]

I think Peter has some good points, but in the end- he stops short in the big things.

Wait, are you talking about Peter the apostle or Peter Dawson?

EDIT

Nevermind, just saw the last post. Remind me to not instantly reply .

 

[theinquisitive]

Well of course he did. So did Jerome, and both of them had some prime words to say about women didn’t they?

So right!!! He was one of the prime promoters of “sexuality” as being the original sin
Augustine had a LOT to say about sex… devoted his life (a whole lot of writings) to that subject one might say
But then,he did have quite a bit of experience in that field.
His Mother was “overbaring”, he was not allowed to marry his concubine (of over thirteen years and who gave birth to his son, Adeodatusf) for “scocial reasons”,she was concidered under his status.
Augustine’s mother had followed him to Milan and he allowed her to arrange a society marriage, for which he abandoned his concubine.( Why did not Saint Monica arrange for him to marry the mother of his son?)It is believed that Augustine truly loved the woman he had lived with for so long.Very courageous of him to abandon her then??? A truely Christian act. He had of course other “concubines” while waiting for his 11year old bride to become of age, eventually he called off the union.
In my opinion Augustine was a “troubled” soul (a fact which is evident in his writings),
by giving up any ideas of marriage, and devoting himself entirely to serving God and to the practices of priesthood, which included celibacy,he may have been punishing himself for forsaking his “first love” and his child.?
Perhaps some should read Augustine’s theory on, “the un-chaste embrace” an eye opener I can asure you… as is so much of his writings… ie, "women have more unhealthy “fluids” than the male,which makes her succum more easily to SIN
YES, he was a real influence on the role of women in society…even today…
He gets the vote “matcho’s best friend”. Saint or NOT??? Voted saint by MEN!! now that does surprise,does it not :
Augustine’s excursions into the Manichaean religion,and other sects, witness to his inconsistency
Although (later in life) in two was he really constant, his adversity to sex and his discrimination of women.
Original sin,was the sin of “disobedience” to God’s express Commandment,“NOT to eat of the fruit from the tree of good and evil” NO SEX involved…
What really get’s me, is the use of the word sex as in dirty…
Sex= sexual intercourse= intercourse between the sexes…
Well,that’s how God planed it… or not? I’m sure he did not change his mind later…
So,just as we find pleasure in eating,drinking the things that are tastefull to us to keep alive,so I suppose,it was God’s will that “sex” should also be “pleasing” to us,so why should it be THE original sin? there were no other people present to “fornicate” with, contraception was probably not an issue,so they had sex for pleasure… WOW!!
TOO strange!! Sounds a lot like Augustine’s codex
And pleeeeeeez no reference to “free love,homosexuality”, for that is quite another subject.

 

[Liraco]

By and large, the Church does a good job.

But it fails, in some ways. Very, very, very badly.

Actually on seeing Peter fail so much the real answer is not “look how the Church can fail you though I prefer it”.

No, the real message is: “look how man can fail when he strays away from Me, yet My Church will not fail”. He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and 2000 years He’s been good on His word.

You’re right that there have been some big problems, but they are eventually overcome thanks to the saints and those who follow God’s word.

Remember Peter sinking when Jesus made him walk on water? It was because He lost faith, and that’s when man stumbles.

I find Pope Peter (to be clear) as voted “biggest traitor” above Judas to be odd. To who did Jesus say it would have been better to not have been born? That would be Judas, who SOLD Jesus for a bit of money. Peter denied Him, yes, but Jesus still knew he could come around when he later would ask him 3 times if he loved Him.

Peter cried bitterly, just like any of us would have done, when he realize how he failed God.

I’ll be praying for “little Nhu” too. Peace be with you.

 

[StrawberryJam]

So right!!! He was one of the prime promoters of “sexuality” as being the original sin
Augustine had a LOT to say about sex… devoted his life (a whole lot of writings) to that subject one might say
But then,he did have quite a bit of experience in that field.
His Mother was “overbaring”, he was not allowed to marry his concubine (of over thirteen years and who gave birth to his son, Adeodatusf) for “scocial reasons”,she was concidered under his status.
Augustine’s mother had followed him to Milan and he allowed her to arrange a society marriage, for which he abandoned his concubine.( Why did not Saint Monica arrange for him to marry the mother of his son?)It is believed that Augustine truly loved the woman he had lived with for so long.Very courageous of him to abandon her then??? A truely Christian act. He had of course other “concubines” while waiting for his 11year old bride to become of age, eventually he called off the union.
In my opinion Augustine was a “troubled” soul (a fact which is evident in his writings),
by giving up any ideas of marriage, and devoting himself entirely to serving God and to the practices of priesthood, which included celibacy,he may have been punishing himself for forsaking his “first love” and his child.?
Perhaps some should read Augustine’s theory on, “the un-chaste embrace” an eye opener I can asure you… as is so much of his writings… ie, "women have more unhealthy “fluids” than the male,which makes her succum more easily to SIN
YES, he was a real influence on the role of women in society…even today…
He gets the vote “matcho’s best friend”. Saint or NOT??? Voted saint by MEN!! now that does surprise,does it not :
Augustine’s excursions into the Manichaean religion,and other sects, witness to his inconsistency
Although (later in life) in two was he really constant, his adversity to sex and his discrimination of women.
Original sin,was the sin of “disobedience” to God’s express Commandment,“NOT to eat of the fruit from the tree of good and evil” NO SEX involved…
What really get’s me, is the use of the word sex as in dirty…
Sex= sexual intercourse= intercourse between the sexes…
Well,that’s how God planed it… or not? I’m sure he did not change his mind later…
So,just as we find pleasure in eating,drinking the things that are tastefull to us to keep alive,so I suppose,it was God’s will that “sex” should also be “pleasing” to us,so why should it be THE original sin? there were no other people present to “fornicate” with, contraception was probably not an issue,so they had sex for pleasure… WOW!!
TOO strange!! Sounds a lot like Augustine’s codex
And pleeeeeeez no reference to “free love,homosexuality”, for that is quite another subject.

I agree with your points here theinquisitive. I think while Augustine was a brilliant man, he had some problems that came with his background, and the times overall then. Fantastic mind, yet damaged by his past.
I see the same kind of problems with the silver tongue St. John Chrysostom, who was also an amazing man, but a bit off in some areas. Like his words for the Jews.
Nice ligturgy though.