What Was The Original Sin Adam & Eve Committed?

[Blue_Horizon]

We know that the book of Genesis sometimes uses figurative language to describe real truths and real events. I have heard that many theologians hold that the actual original sin which Adam and Eve committed may not have been to literally eat an apple off a tree…

This sort of makes sense to me in a certain way: “Don’t eat the apple off this tree. Anything else? Go for it. But not this tree.” My response would probably be “Piece of cake!” --Especially with Adam’s heightened level of self-control. (I get there’s definitely more to it than that. I’m merely generalizing.)

So, many theologians believe that the actual sin was of a sexual nature. They also believe this is the reason sexual sins are so dangerous and easy to fall into. We can point the Blessed Mother’s words to children of Fatima that most people are in Hell because of sins of the flesh. It also sort of explains why virginity is held in such a high regard. Humans just have a certain weakness when it comes to their sexuality, so the ability to control it to the point of perpetual virginity is a great sign of self-mastery and love of God.

Does anyone have any ideas on this theory? I’d love to hear what people think.

I think we all know it was eating from the forbidden fruit tree.
We do not know what sort of fruit tree it actually was and I don’t see how it matters.
The fruit tree symbolises direct knowledge/experience of both good and evil.
What that actually means is the subject of much discussion.

Whatever it means Adam and Eve clearly knew it would mean a serious break in their relationship with God.

The general consensus of the Father of the Church has not given much thought to sins of the flesh or gluttony but disobedience and pride. It isn’t hard to find info on the Net with Google searches.

 

[John_Martin]

What was the disobedience? I completely understand that this question is totally irrelevant to our salvation. It’s merely a speculative question.

I’m not “going on” about it. I pointed out that it’s the opinion of many theologians.** I asked you before to provide citation for your claim** that it’s a heresy that the actual sin was of a sexual nature. You have thus far failed to do so.

You’re saying that the belief that Eve was arroused by the serpent is a heresy. Fine, that may be true. Please provide authoritative citation —I.e., official Church teaching. Besides, even if that belief is condemned as a heresy, that still doesn’t prove that the original sin was not an act of sex. Eve being aroused by the devil is not the only possible form of sexual sin. There could be any number of sins with sexual origin.

You still haven’t provided an opinion on what exactly the sin of disobedience was. That’s fine if you don’t have an opinion on it, you don’t need to have one. The Church hasn’t spoken on what the actual sin of disobedience was except for the fact that “Pride entered into his heart”

Again this is all speculative, so please refrain from speaking in an authoritative tone unless you’re willing to provide official church teaching on the specific subject.

Isn’t that interesting: you ask for someone else’s citation, but grant yourself the liberty of saying “Many Theologians”.
Now, who might these be???

By the way, if you were at Mass on Sunday, it was brought to your memory what Paul wrote to Philemon, “Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.”
Interesting that when we were in the Garden, we wanted to “be like God, knowing good and evil”, and we “grasped for the fruit and ate.”

Yet Jesus, “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross.”

We think about God, in the third person, and how we can make ourselves Live, as he Lives, serving no one but our own desire.
Jesus thought about God in the second person, always in his presence seeing how he might serve him, and letting his own Life be his Father’s business to worry about.

 

[truetofaith]

I can’t understand what is so difficult to interpret when God told Adam & Eve they can eat of every tree in the Garden EXCEPT from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? He said if they did they will surely die.
The devil in the form of a serpent told Eve…“you won’t die.” So seeing the tree was good for food & gaining knowledge she ate & gave some to Adam.
How does this become a sexual sin???

You have to be looking at too much porn & your head is filled with sexy thoughts!

 

[steve93]

You’ve already been given the answer; it was willful disobedience driven by presumption, the desire to be like God even if it takes violating the one divine prohibition.

I don’t know why you are going on about the original act of sin being sexual. That is actually a heretical idea that sprung up positing that Eve was sexually aroused by the serpent and finished the act herself. It does not stand up to the text and it most certainly is not an orthodox position of true theologians.

gnosticism :
An early heresy with said that the physical is inherently evil.

 

[spiderweb]

What was the disobedience? I completely understand that this question is totally irrelevant to our salvation. It’s merely a speculative question.

I’m not “going on” about it. I pointed out that it’s the opinion of many theologians. I asked you before to provide citation for your claim that it’s a heresy that the actual sin was of a sexual nature. You have thus far failed to do so.

You’re saying that the belief that Eve was arroused by the serpent is a heresy. Fine, that may be true. Please provide authoritative citation —I.e., official Church teaching. Besides, even if that belief is condemned as a heresy, that still doesn’t prove that the original sin was not an act of sex. Eve being aroused by the devil is not the only possible form of sexual sin. There could be any number of sins with sexual origin.

You still haven’t provided an opinion on what exactly the sin of disobedience was. That’s fine if you don’t have an opinion on it, you don’t need to have one. The Church hasn’t spoken on what the actual sin of disobedience was except for the fact that “Pride entered into his heart”

Again this is all speculative, so please refrain from speaking in an authoritative tone unless you’re willing to provide official church teaching on the specific subject.

It sounds to me that you want someone to affirm the opinion that it was a sexual sin and at the same time, you acknowledge that it is only speculative and there is no authoritative teaching on what the actual act was.

The obvious opinion in this thread is that it was not a sexual sin. Read the text…What verse(s) give any indication that the sin is sexual in nature?

 

[omgriley]

I can’t understand what is so difficult to interpret when God told Adam & Eve they can eat of every tree in the Garden EXCEPT from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? He said if they did they will surely die.
The devil in the form of a serpent told Eve…“you won’t die.” So seeing the tree was good for food & gaining knowledge she ate & gave some to Adam.
How does this become a sexual sin???

You have to be looking at too much porn & your head is filled with sexy thoughts!

#1: You have been reported for the insulting and rude comment which insinuates that because I have an opinion on a part of the Bible it must be because I have a problem with pornography. That’s disgusting and it’s not funny.

#2: The question on the table is not whether God told Adam & Eve not to eat the apple. The question is: Does the Tree, the Apple, and the command to not eat of the tree a metaphor for some particular sin?

Fact is there is no Church teaching on this question. It is purely speculative. It’s an exercise in curiosity. If you have an opinion on it, great. If not, that’s OK too. Please keep the insults to yourself.

 

[omgriley]

It sounds to me that you want someone to affirm the opinion that it was a sexual sin and at the same time, you acknowledge that it is only speculative and there is no authoritative teaching on what the actual act was.

The obvious opinion in this thread is that it was not a sexual sin. Read the text…What verse(s) give any indication that the sin is sexual in nature?

I’m not looking for affirmation, just merely what others think of that opinion, and if anyone has one of their own. I’m sorry if I did not make that clear.

Yes it does appea that I’m in the minority on this opinion. I don’t necessarily have that opinion as it is, though.

 

[spiderweb]

The original sin in my opinion is calling God a liar by their actions (regardless of what the action was). They believed he was holding out on them something good and that they could have it not from Him, but apart from Him. Rebellion and the sin of pride.

 

[truetofaith]

#1: You have been reported for the insulting and rude comment which insinuates that because I have an opinion on a part of the Bible it must be because I have a problem with pornography. That’s disgusting and it’s not funny.

#2: The question on the table is not whether God told Adam & Eve not to eat the apple. The question is: Does the Tree, the Apple, and the command to not eat of the tree a metaphor for some particular sin?

Fact is there is no Church teaching on this question. It is purely speculative. It’s an exercise in curiosity. If you have an opinion on it, great. If not, that’s OK too. Please keep the insults to yourself.

Thank you for reporting me…but I didn’t post my comment to you, personally.

I posted it in general…so anyone who sees a sexual reference in the Bible story has too much sex on the brain.
What's disgusting is the original Topic! :(

 

[Tim_D]

Fact is there is no Church teaching on this question. It is purely speculative.

False. It has always been the teaching of the Church that it was Adam and Eve’s disobedience that caused their fall from grace. Even Milton states it in the opening lines of Paradise Lost:

“OF Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat…,”

Do you not see a parallel between Adam and Christ, when Christ was said to be “obedient even unto death?”

 

[omgriley]

Thank you for reporting me…but I didn’t post my comment to you, personally.

I posted it in general…so anyone who sees a sexual reference in the Bible story has too much sex on the brain.

 What's disgusting is the original Topic! :(

That’s ridiculous.

 

[omgriley]

False. It has always been the teaching of the Church that it was Adam and Eve’s disobedience that caused their fall from grace. Even Milton states it in the opening lines of Paradise Lost:

“OF Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat…,”

Do you not see a parallel between Adam and Christ, when Christ was said to be “obedient even unto death?”

No, not false. “Disobedience” does not describe an action being taken, it describes the actions merits. For example, I can confess to a priest that I was deliberately disobedient to a superior. On that information alone the priest still has no idea what I’ve actually done.

My point stands. The Church has not said anything about what the actual sin was. It merely says that they disobeyed. The Bible says they disobeyed by eating the fruit, but the Churh has not said that this must be taken to be a literal piece of fruit.

 

[grannymh]

No, not false. “Disobedience” does not describe an action being taken, it describes the actions merits. For example, I can confess to a priest that I was deliberately disobedient to a superior. On that information alone the priest still has no idea what I’ve actually done.

My point stands. The Church has not said anything about what the actual sin was. It merely says that they disobeyed. The Bible says they disobeyed by eating the fruit, but the Churh has not said that this must be taken to be a literal piece of fruit.

Have you ever thought about the original friendship relationship between the Creator God and the creature Adam? Not understanding this important relationship may be why you are having difficulty with Original Sin. Have you ever read CCC 396?

I do not want to put words in your mouth. In your own words, please tell us what this wonderful relationship includes. Please tell us what elements or rules are needed for this very special relationship between Divinity and humanity.

Thank you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Tim_D]

No, not false. “Disobedience” does not describe an action being taken, it describes the actions merits. For example, I can confess to a priest that I was deliberately disobedient to a superior. On that information alone the priest still has no idea what I’ve actually done.

My point stands. The Church has not said anything about what the actual sin was. It merely says that they disobeyed. The Bible says they disobeyed by eating the fruit, but the Churh has not said that this must be taken to be a literal piece of fruit.

Reading comprehension must not be your forte.

Disobedience: noun - “failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.”

Genesis tells us that Adam & Eve were free to eat from all of the trees of the garden ***except ***the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were not to eat of it, nor were they even to touch it "lest they die."

Adam and Eve, driven by the fruit that was appealing to the senses and with the desire to eat of it so that they could “be like God who knows,” freely chose to disobey the divine command of God and ate of the tree. They were disobedient because they ignored the command of God and presumed to be unto themselves. I cannot imagine why this is so hard for you to comprehend (assuming, of course, that you aren’t simply being obtuse).

In the parable of the Two Sons, the first son tells his father that he will go work in the fields but he doesn’t do it. Is that not disobedience? The second son says he won’t, repents of his action and works the field.

 

[truetofaith]

The important words in the Bible are that Eve saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food and desirable for gaining wisdom…so she ate of it.

There is no metaphor suggested.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Reading comprehension must not be your forte.

Disobedience: noun - “failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.”

Genesis tells us that Adam & Eve were free to eat from all of the trees of the garden ***except ***the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were not to eat of it, nor were they even to touch it "lest they die."

Adam and Eve, driven by the fruit that was appealing to the senses and with the desire to eat of it so that they could “be like God who knows,” freely chose to disobey the divine command of God and ate of the tree. They were disobedient because they ignored the command of God and presumed to be unto themselves. I cannot imagine why this is so hard for you to comprehend (assuming, of course, that you aren’t simply being obtuse).

In the parable of the Two Sons, the first son tells his father that he will go work in the fields but he doesn’t do it. Is that not disobedience? The second son says he won’t, repents of his action and works the field.

Agreed. The general consensus amongst the foremost Fathers was that the material deed of disobedience was preceeded by an internal act of pride. They all seem to say they sinned in the will before their hand’s touched the fruit.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The important words in the Bible are that Eve saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food and desirable for gaining wisdom…so she ate of it.

There is no metaphor suggested.

Well I am not sure we can say there are no metaphor’s, but at face value they have nothing to do with either gluttony or lust. “Forbidden fruit” (ie unavailable women) is a relatively recent colloquialism.

Yes, the bit about hiding their nakedness is about sexuality, or rather the punishment of their sin that we call concupiscence. That is, the loss of the soul’s ability to assert complete control over the body (the preternatural gifts). Thus these newly experienced uncontrollable movements of the flesh were their first “karmic” evidence of the self-corruption caused by their disobedience. Death of course was another but concupiscence was their first experience of the consequences of their sin.
Hence their hiding from God due to shame of being naked.

However this does not mean the Original sin itself was sexual at all. A very different and subtle point is being made there. Concupiscence is an effect of their sin not the cause of their sin.

Aquinas says it is right that we were punished in our generative capacities as this is the way the punishment Original Sin is spread to all human nature.

 

[Fiasco]

I don’t know why you are going on about the original act of sin being sexual. ** That is actually a heretical idea that sprung up positing that Eve was sexually aroused by the serpent and finished the act herself.** It does not stand up to the text and it most certainly is not an orthodox position of true theologians.

That sounds suspiciously like part of an alleged Italian mystic’s condemned “revelations”. Too many otherwise faithful Catholics regard those books as being of divine origin and filling in gaps missed by Scripture.
Another example of sensuality in those books is King Horrid’s bringing on the dancing girls to try to arouse Our Lord.

 

[omgriley]

Reading comprehension must not be your forte.

Disobedience: noun - “failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.”

Genesis tells us that Adam & Eve were free to eat from all of the trees of the garden ***except ***the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were not to eat of it, nor were they even to touch it "lest they die."

Adam and Eve, driven by the fruit that was appealing to the senses and with the desire to eat of it so that they could “be like God who knows,” freely chose to disobey the divine command of God and ate of the tree. They were disobedient because they ignored the command of God and presumed to be unto themselves. I cannot imagine why this is so hard for you to comprehend (assuming, of course, that you aren’t simply being obtuse).

In the parable of the Two Sons, the first son tells his father that he will go work in the fields but he doesn’t do it. Is that not disobedience? The second son says he won’t, repents of his action and works the field.

I don’t know how many times I can try to explain myself. I have no issue understanding original sin, or God’s relationship to man.

Disobedience can literally mean anything. Any logical followup question to the statement “I disobeyed” would be “What did you do?” Obviously disobedience does not describe a specific action taken.

My original question went to the possibility that the fruit and the Tree could be metaphoric for something else. It has nothing to do with the concept of original sin in itself. That’s ridiculous.

Regardless, it’s pretty clear that we’re not making any progress on this topic and I’m certainly not about to get into an insult contest with you or anyone else. It’s probably best to simply move on.

 

[omgriley]

Well I am not sure we can say there are no metaphor’s, but at face value they have nothing to do with either gluttony or lust. “Forbidden fruit” (ie unavailable women) is a relatively recent colloquialism.

Yes, the bit about hiding their nakedness is about sexuality, or rather the punishment of their sin that we call concupiscence. That is, the loss of the soul’s ability to assert complete control over the body (the preternatural gifts). Thus these newly experienced uncontrollable movements of the flesh were their first “karmic” evidence of the self-corruption caused by their disobedience. Death of course was another but concupiscence was their first experience of the consequences of their sin.
Hence their hiding from God due to shame of being naked.

However this does not mean the Original sin itself was sexual at all. A very different and subtle point is being made there. Concupiscence is an effect of their sin not the cause of their sin.

Aquinas says it is right that we were punished in our generative capacities as this is the way the punishment Original Sin is spread to all human nature.

Thank you for your clarification and insight. My suggestion was not that the sin was not of pride and disobedience, but I’m merely pointing out the possibility that the Tree and the Fruit/Apple could be a metaphor for something else. Isn’t that at least possible? Based on my reasoning in the OP, I suggested that it could be sexual. I certainly am not fixated on that theory, and I know that the text does not suggest that it’s anything sexual. It’s merely just an idea.

But like I said, thank you for your insight.