Was sexual PERVERSION the original sin?

[grannymh]

The Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-level hypothetical, …

… and the Adam and Eve stoey is thus fiction.

This may be someone’s personal opinion.

It certainly has no relevance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[MrZetterlund]

1. The euphemistic metaphors of eating fruit under a tree may be evocative of oral sex (some theologians see similar euphemisms describing foreplay in Song of Songs)

So, wait… What’s wrong with oral sex!?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Some of us actually have faith in the authority of the Church (crazy, I know). So we actually - get this - believe the dogmas of the Church, among which are included the assertions that there was were two literal first parents, Adam & Eve, and a real serpent and subsequent fall in original sin.

The Church does not affirmatively deny at this point that homo sapiens may have arisen in the evolutionary stream (except that God would have actively ensouled us, since life can not evolve a soul).

The Church does not affirmatively teach that there was a guy named “Adam” and a girl named “Eve.”

The Church does not affirmatively teach that there was a talking serpent.

The Church does teach that Original Sin was an actual historical incident. I believe that this is error.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

This may be someone’s personal opinion.

It certainly has no relevance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I disagree, Granny.

I think that when we view the Adam and Eve story as non-fiction, we bury the Catholic theology which the story teaches in nonsense.

 

[grannymh]

I disagree, Granny.

I think that when we view the Adam and Eve story as non-fiction, we bury the Catholic theology which the story teaches in nonsense.

 

[Ziggamafu]

The Church does not affirmatively deny at this point that homo sapiens may have arisen in the evolutionary stream (except that God would have actively ensouled us, since life can not evolve a soul).

The Church does not affirmatively teach that there was a guy named “Adam” and a girl named “Eve.”

The Church does not affirmatively teach that there was a talking serpent.

The Church does teach that Original Sin was an actual historical incident. I believe that this is error.

Correct on evolution, wrong on Adam, Eve, and the serpent. You must have missed the post were I referenced the documents. Here, let me help you by posting it again.

“Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?–Reply: In the negative.”
(Responses of the Biblical Commission to Some Questions on The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis)

Pope St. Pius X on the above quote from the Biblical Commission in his motu proprio Praestantia Scripturae:

"After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.

Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously."

 

[Liraco]

Peter, as far as I recall the Church DOES teach that we had an original set of parents, even if they came about through evolution. In other words it was not a monkey that brought in original sin to the world, it was the first human parents who were given a rational (human) soul as opposed to an animal soul. Even with evolution, there was a unique point in history were God created the first human beings, it would be when he gave created those souls.

Figurative language doesn’t render Genesis a mere story. You’re right in saying that taking it completely literally misses the point, but in going down the other extreme you do the same.

I recommend you, Peter, and anyone else interested give this a read before discussing further:
catholic.com//library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[patg]

“Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?–Reply: In the negative.”
(Responses of the Biblical Commission to Some Questions on The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis)

Pope St. Pius X on the above quote from the Biblical Commission in his motu proprio Praestantia Scripturae:

"After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.

Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously."

Actually, the catechism assures us that “The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language…” and several recent dormatic statements instruct us to consider the literary form of the story. The literal for of the story of the couple in the garden is that of a myth.

It is an imaginative story that uses symbols to explore a realty beyond our comprehension. The reality being explored is “Why do human beings suffer?” Given the beliefs that God is all loving and all powerful, that God made humans human beings in God’s own image, and that we are very good, why do we suffer? You would think God would have created things in an order that didn’t involve suffering. Why pain in childbirth? Why death? Suffering appears to be part of the order of things. All of this is very mysterious. How can our belief that God is all loving and all powerful be made compatible with our experience of suffering?

The author who chose to explore this question does not have the option of giving an historical explanation. He doesn’t know a historical explanation. The author makes it very evident that his genre is not historical by his obvious use of symbols.

What in the story is an obvious symbol? Every reader, once he or she thinks about it, recognizes the tree of a knowledge of good and evil as a symbol. Such a tree does not in fact exist in the order of reality. Notice there is no apple tree in this story. There is a tree of a knowledge of good and evil and a tree of life - another obvious symbol. If one can eat every day from the tree of life, one will not die. A third obvious symbol is the talking snake. Notice too that the snake is not referred to as the devil. The snake is a character in the plot, just as God, the man, and the woman are characters in the plot.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Correct on evolution, wrong on Adam, Eve, and the serpent. You must have missed the post were I referenced the documents. Here, let me help you by posting it again.

Where do your citations mention “Adam” and “Eve”?

When you insist that “Adam” and “Eve” existed, you functionally insist that the two individuals with the baggage that goes along with them existed.

Who was “Adam”? Adam was the guy whom God tried ro match up with animals, but unsuccessfully, so that He finally created woman.

Do you believe that? Do you really believe that God erred, or are you suddenly a “cafeteria believer,” who believes some, but not all, of what you say the Church teaches?

Re the serpent, it is tragic that Pius X stood behind the serpent story.

In my opinion, you are looking at error.

 

[crazzeto]

An interesting theory, personally I don’t know that I could subscribe to it for a number of reasons. For starters, immedately after eating the fruit the bible says:

Genesis 3,
drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm

7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

Not that I’m saying you have to beleive that there was a real tree, with a real fruit… But it would seem to me quite appropriate to believe that whatever the corperal nature of the sin, the effects were deeper than what you would get out of illicit sex acts. The bible says “And the eyes of them both were opened”, or all of the sudden they were given a new perception where by they understood things not understood before. For instance specifically here they now perceive their nakedness, where as before they did not perceive this.

I will say it’s a personal belief of mine, that whatever the corperal nature of the sin the effects of it, or the fruites of it are long lasting and permenant. At least to my mind this really helps explain original sin. I guess at this point anyone feel free to jump in and add your thoughts here, but at least it’s my thought that we suffer original sin at least in part because our “eyes are still open”. We still perseive our own nakedness, we still are capable of Judging right and wrong.

Whether or not these are correct literal terms in which to consider it… I guess I can’t say, but it seems to me that it makes sense that something along these lines would be true.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter, as far as I recall the Church DOES teach that we had an original set of parents, even if they came about through evolution. In other words it was not a monkey that brought in original sin to the world, it was the first human parents who were given a rational (human) soul as opposed to an animal soul. Even with evolution, there was a unique point in history were God created the first human beings, it would be when he gave created those souls.

Figurative language doesn’t render Genesis a mere story. You’re right in saying that taking it completely literally misses the point, but in going down the other extreme you do the same.

I recommend you, Peter, and anyone else interested give this a read before discussing further:
catholic.com//library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Hi, Liraco.

I believe in a modified form of monogenesis, not strict monogenesis.

Strict monogenesis requires that we believe that at one point, to obey God’s command that we “be fertile and multiply,” incest was a virtue.

I think that that is an evil teaching.

In my view, we are “monogenetic” – all descended from a set of unensouled first parents several generations prior to the initial ensoulment time – and God wisely ensouled those of our species whom God knew, with perfect foreknowledge, would become engaged in sexual relations with others in our species.

Modified monogenesis avoids making incest a virtue, while it preserves the policy underlying strict monogenesis – we are all made of the same “sinful stuff.”

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the catechism assures us that “The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language…” and several recent dormatic statements instruct us to consider the literary form of the story. The literal for of the story of the couple in the garden is that of a myth.

Actually, one should read all the paragraphs about Genesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church


to understand how to read Genesis.

The literal for the story of the two sole first parents of the human race is the truth of original sin. Unfortunately, it seems that this truth is forgotten. Again, this can be found in the Catechism.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does teach that Original Sin was an actual historical incident. I believe that this is error.

Quick correction to my comment that the truth of original sin is being forgotten. Apparently, ignoring it is accompanied by someone saying. “I believe that this is error.” I do wonder what a Catholic gains by calling the dogma of original sin an error.

 

[FightingFat]

Pride is all sin, and pride was the original sin.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Quick correction to my comment that the truth of original sin is being forgotten. Apparently, ignoring it is accompanied by someone saying. “I believe that this is error.” I do wonder what a Catholic gains by calling the dogma of original sin an error.

Hi, Granny.

I believe in “Original Sin,” but I deny that Original Sin was an event in time.

I believe that the proper Catholic view of Original Sin should be that Original Sin is that state of alienation from God in the absence of grace endemic to all flesh, such that we are innately inclined to sin, and will only sin, in the absence of grace, on every moral question, and that therefore Christ had to suffer and die to purchase grace from His Own justice.

Those who believe that Original Sin is an event in time also profess that God punished those two sinning individuals by kicking the next 100,000,000,000 people, descended from Adam and Eve, out of Paradise.

Note that punishing the children for the sins of the parents is a sin.

Literalists try to escape this dilemma by arguing that “God is God; He is sovereign; He can do anything He wants!”

They (and the Catechism) argue that part of God’s punishment was a change in mankind that cauised a proclivity to sin to our children.

In other words, God increased sin to punish mankind.

I can’t believe any of that.

We are inclined to sin. We do pass it to our child, by making children who are made of flesh, which is innately prone to sin. But God did not do that to punish a sinful action by a man and a woman thousands of years ago.

 

[Ziggamafu]

2,000 years of tradition, from the NT Scriptures to the Fathers to Vatican 2, ALL insist, from time to time, that while the creation accounts can be interpreted in more or less metaphorical ways, certain core elements of the story (God created everything, 2 original human parents were created perfectly, Satan - the serpent - tempted them to disobey, and that disobedience -original sin- corrupted all of mankind’s potentiality within Adam) have always been insisted on. You can deny that, but you can’t deny that as a Church teaching.

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commented on the situation of original sin and its impact on Man in his “In the Beginning”:

What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without- from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are present. Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives - themselves- only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, a disturbance of relationship, and therefore, it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event- sin- touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment when a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.
But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved- that is, free and true- when we stop wanting to be God and renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved- that is, become ourselves- when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that the damage lies. Since the relationship with Creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God’s love can purify damaged human love and radically re-establish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation.

Ratzinger explains the ontological shift away from Man’s created state in paradise; the internal distortion of Man’s spirit, away from a community under God and toward a community under himself.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

2,000 years of tradition, from the NT Scriptures to the Fathers to Vatican 2, ALL insist, from time to time, that while the creation accounts can be interpreted in more or less metaphorical ways, certain core elements of the story (God created everything, 2 original human parents were created perfectly, Satan - the serpent - tempted them to disobey, and that disobedience -original sin- corrupted all of mankind’s potentiality within Adam) have always been insisted on. You can deny that, but you can’t deny that as a Church teaching.

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commented on the situation of original sin and its impact on Man in his “In the Beginning”:

Ratzinger explains the ontological shift away from Man’s created state in paradise; the internal distortion of Man’s spirit, away from a community under God and toward a community under himself.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

2,000 years of tradition, from the NT Scriptures to the Fathers to Vatican 2, ALL insist, from time to time, that while the creation accounts can be interpreted in more or less metaphorical ways, certain core elements of the story (God created everything, 2 original human parents were created perfectly, Satan - the serpent - tempted them to disobey, and that disobedience -original sin- corrupted all of mankind’s potentiality within Adam) have always been insisted on. You can deny that, but you can’t deny that as a Church teaching.

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commented on the situation of original sin and its impact on Man in his “In the Beginning”:

Ratzinger explains the ontological shift away from Man’s created state in paradise; the internal distortion of Man’s spirit, away from a community under God and toward a community under himself.

“original human parents were created perfectly”: Do you mean that they were “created perfect,” not “created perfectly”?

“disobedience -original sin- corrupted all of mankind’s potentiality within Adam”: What do those words mean? I do not understand them at all. What is “mankind’s potentiality within Adam”?

 

[Ziggamafu]

Yeah, I meant created perfect. And I should also have said potentiality of all humankind within Adam. Sorry for the confusion. My fault.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Yeah, I meant created perfect. And I should also have said potentiality of all humankind within Adam. Sorry for the confusion. My fault.

I don’t buy either. Sorry, friend.