What was the original sin?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I posted here but it seems the subject was declared banned.

I declare that, at least on my part, no one harmed me, no one insulted me, and I have no hard feelings towards nobody. I am absolutely cool on it.

If I offended anybody, I apologize.

I would like to know when the subject reopens for it is essential to discuss it and subject to intense debate in the USA.

So, when anybody knows when the subject reopens, please, contact the crowd.

Thanks.

 

[manualman]

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning ‘banned’ subjects.

Your problem is a failure to differentiate between biblical accounts such as parables that are implicitly fictional morality tales, biblical accounts of real events that are described through a different sort of historical narrative than we tediously modern people are used to (such as much of Genesis) and biblical accounts that are poetic description.

The fact that you haven’t been formally disciplined for your views means sadly little today. The church is awash in people with radically faulty theological ideas in explicit conflict with defined church teaching. But I wonder if you’ve actually read Dei Verbum and similar authoritative current teaching or if you are just hanging your hat on the opinions of specualtive catholic scholars such as Brown and his crowd?

 

[hilaretenebris]

Agreed. Asking youth to come up with their own idea on this topic is, IMHO, irresponsible. The Church teaches us authoritatively on this topic. We don’t need to make things up. I don’t know what the youth minister could be thinking. She has a “theory”? Sounds like this youth minister might be headed down a dangerous path.

Yikes! Okay, I definitely need to clarify some things. It’s not like we were asked to ‘‘come up with our own ideas’’ on this and then live according to our ideas without consulting Church teaching. But I can see where my original post might give that impression. Sorry! We are all quite quite the scholarly type in our youth group and so when my youth director told us ‘‘to go home and think about and develop some guesses on what the original sin was’’ it was with the knowledge that we would probably all go home and immediately consult the Catechism, read the beginning of Genesis, post on CAF, reread the beginning of Genesis… you get the idea! Granted, all of us probably didn’t do all of that. (I’m not sure how many of us are CAF users) But I know most of us consulted the Catechism and the Bible, at least. My youth minister is a very godly woman who I respect totally and who I know respects and lives according to the teachings of the Church. She wholly believes all of what the Church teaches on original sin and further more, in our youth group discussion, we covered most of the Church teaching that has been brought up here on CAF. She was very careful not to go against any church teaching. With that said, I don’t think it is wrong for lay people to have theological discussions in which they develop theories within the bounds of church teaching. So back to the original question “What was the original sin?” When you say that the Church teaches authoritatively on this topic, I assume that you mean the answer so nicely provided by Joe5859:

Man’s first sin

CCC 397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of [Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19.]. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

So the answer would be **disobedience. **

But is it proper to say that disobedience, as the original sin, is the first sin? Or would whatever motivated Adam and Eve’s disobedience be the first sin?

 

[EasterJoy]

But is it proper to say that disobedience, as the original sin, is the first sin? Or would whatever motivated Adam and Eve’s disobedience be the first sin?

English word “obedience” a. Etymology - Latin oboedire - ob = towards; oedire = "
to hear" b. Meaning: “to hear or listen towards”

The virtue of obedience isn’t just a matter of acting in accordance to rules. It is implies an attitude, as well. When you admit a motivation that draws you away from listening to God and toward listening to some other guide, that is already a disobedient attitude.

When the First Parents reckoned the forbidden fruit “desirable for gaining wisdom”, that was already a disobedient attitude. The attitude was chosen, rather than just considered, when they acted on the attitude. If they had eaten the fruit without choosing the attitude–if the snake in the story had stolen it himself and hidden it in their other food–there would have been no sin in that.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Same as all sins - disobedience to Gods will

 

[EasterJoy]

Same as all sins - disobedience to Gods will

The effect of original sin is the propensity towards disobedience…that is, towards listening to the self instead of towards hearing God. That is what we are all born with.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning ‘banned’ subjects.

Your problem is a failure to differentiate between biblical accounts such as parables that are implicitly fictional morality tales, biblical accounts of real events that are described through a different sort of historical narrative than we tediously modern people are used to (such as much of Genesis) and biblical accounts that are poetic description.

The fact that you haven’t been formally disciplined for your views means sadly little today. The church is awash in people with radically faulty theological ideas in explicit conflict with defined church teaching. But I wonder if you’ve actually read Dei Verbum and similar authoritative current teaching or if you are just hanging your hat on the opinions of specualtive catholic scholars such as Brown and his crowd?

Sorry, I cannot answer to you.
I was advised from a Moderator that Evolution is a banned topic and I think atheism too.
It seem things were, according to the Moderator, beginning to heat up. Thus the reason of my declaration that no one offended me and I apologize for any harm done to others with my words as the farthest thing in my mind is to come here to insult anybody. But then, you can do it unwillingly as you are dealing with different cultures, different countries and so on. So, my apologies.
When the subject re-opens, I will gladly join.
Meanwhile, God Bless You.

 

[grannymh]

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning ‘banned’ subjects.

From a scientific point of view, the difficulty concerns the reality of two, sole parents of humanity. Unfortunately, there are people who use science as a way of denying the reality of Adam and thus the reality of Original Sin. In some Forums, discussions about evolution have become very heated, that is, volatile. That is why the discussion of evolution theory, itself, is banned in the Apologetics Forum, the Philosophy Forum, and the Sacred Scripture Forum. For information, read the sticky notes at the top of the Apologetics Forum.

It is important to remember that science only deals with the material anatomy. This limitation does not rule of the presence of our spiritual soul nor does it rule out God’s plan for human beings.

Your problem is a failure to differentiate between biblical accounts such as parables that are implicitly fictional morality tales, biblical accounts of real events that are described through a different sort of historical narrative than we tediously modern people are used to (such as much of Genesis) and biblical accounts that are poetic description.

This failure to differentiate between biblical accounts is one of the chief difficulties facing Catholics. The seriousness of interpretation is emphasized in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, in paragraph 390.

Another major difficulty is taking Original Sin out of context. For example, trying to figure out what that particular sin was. The *Catechism *paragraphs 396 - 409 describe that sin and its effects.

But, in order for Catholics to understand that sin, one has to go back to the creation of human nature beginning with the Catechism’s paragraph 355.

A major difficulty today is that many, not all, Catholics have not had a strong education about the events at the beginning of human history. Yet, understanding these events are crucial if we are to understand ourselves and our calling to share in God’s life through knowledge and love. Humanity is peerless in creation and we need to understand that it is our spiritual soul, directly created by God, which sets us apart from all other species.

Morality flows from our relationship with God. Sin, today, continues to break the relationship with God.

It is very important to see the big picture of Original Sin. Please study paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[manualman]

Sorry, I cannot answer to you.
I was advised from a Moderator that Evolution is a banned topic and I think atheism too.

Ah, I should have guessed. Truth be told, I’ve run afoul of a rule or two in my time as well.

Have you read Dei Verbum? Do you tend more towards a Raymond Brown interpretation of Scripture or a Scott Hahn? As you can probably tell, I have rather large reservations about the Brown approach.

 

[Joe_5859]

So the answer would be **disobedience. **

But is it proper to say that disobedience, as the original sin, is the first sin? Or would whatever motivated Adam and Eve’s disobedience be the first sin?

That’s the answer I go with. If we try determining Adam and Eve’s motivation, we’re entering the realm of speculative theology.

I’ve heard the argument that the “serpent” in Genesis 3 was really more akin to a large dragon. The conclusion then was that fear was a strong motivating force. The serpent saying, “You will not die…” is interpreted as a thinly veiled threat with an unspoken “…as long as you eat the fruit. If you don’t eat the fruit, I’ll kill you!”

I think that’s an interesting hypothesis. I’m not sure I buy it 100%, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

It is hard to make sense of that original sin. Adam and Eve were created with an advantage that none of us have: the preternatural gifts. For them to turn their back on God would be akin to Mother Teresa at the height of her sanctity deciding to spit in God’s face. Times a million.

For me, one of the keys of the narrative is the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. That is the tree they couldn’t eat from. It’s not some arbitrary choice on God’s part. “Hmmm… let me see what I’ll tell you not to do…, how about that one!” The one thing that Adam and Eve could not do is to decide for themselves what is good and evil. The fruit from that tree is poisonous indeed. That fruit is death.

 

[grannymh]

Adam had sufficient knowledge as to what was good or evil. This comes from the fact that he had a spiritual soul with the faculties of intellect and will. Recall that God called Adam to share in His divine life through knowledge and love.

At the point of his origin, Adam was established in friendship with God. It is important to recognize that Adam could live in God’s friendship only in free submission to God. Adam, as the created one, is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. (Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396.)

When tempted by the devil, Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. Abusing his freedom, he disobeyed God’s command. Adam freely chose to commit The Original Sin. All subsequent personal sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in His goodness. One can say that Adam’s pride was the reason that Adam choose himself over and against God and against the requirements of his creaturely status. (Please refer to the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 397-412)

 

[hilaretenebris]

That’s the answer I go with. If we try determining Adam and Eve’s motivation, we’re entering the realm of speculative theology.

What is “speculative theology” exactly? Is it permitted/encouraged/discouraged/ for laymen and women? Because I think that Adam and Eve’s motivation might be the ‘‘theory’’ part of what my youth director wanted us to think about. If ''speculative theology is encouraged (or at least permitted) then can I get your opinions on what Adam and Eve’s motivation might have been?

I’ve heard the argument that the “serpent” in Genesis 3 was really more akin to a large dragon. The conclusion then was that fear was a strong motivating force. The serpent saying, “You will not die…” is interpreted as a thinly veiled threat with an unspoken “…as long as you eat the fruit. If you don’t eat the fruit, I’ll kill you!”

I think that’s an interesting hypothesis. I’m not sure I buy it 100%, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

I’ve heard this before too! It does make sense… but why wouldn’t the Bible say ‘‘dragon’’ then? Then we would understand the ‘‘fear factor’’.

It is hard to make sense of that original sin. Adam and Eve were created with an advantage that none of us have: the preternatural gifts. For them to turn their back on God would be akin to Mother Teresa at the height of her sanctity deciding to spit in God’s face. Times a million.

Wouldn’t it be more like Mary deciding to spit in God’s face? Times a million?!?!?

 

[grannymh]

I’ve heard this before too! It does make sense… but why wouldn’t the Bible say ‘‘dragon’’ then? Then we would understand the ‘‘fear factor’’.

The real story is that the devil tempted Adam.

 

[jimcook87]

Adam had sufficient knowledge as to what was good or evil. This comes from the fact that he had a spiritual soul with the faculties of intellect and will.

I don’t think this is quite correct.

I agree both Adam and Eve had the capacity to know good and evil (intellect), but they had experienced nothing but good so did not know evil. I think many people misinterpret that part of the story, they confuse knowledge with intellect, with the capacity for knowing, with wisdom and with understanding. The tree didn’t hold any special fruit to bestow a new ability on Adam and Eve that they didn’t already have. God simply set it apart from the rest of the garden and said, “Don’t eat from this tree.” Disobeying his one rule was an act of evil, so eating from the tree, making a choice contrary to God’s will, was an act of evil and at that moment Adam and Eve first experienced and knew evil. They had the capacity all along they just hadn’t experienced it so didn’t know evil. And without knowing evil they could not know the difference between good and evil.

They could have simply trusted in God’s wisdom and providence, but they didn’t trust in God. The CCC tells us that the first sin was disobedience and lack of trust. And certainly we can all come to recognize that putting their will ahead of God’s means that pride was mixed in as well. But I tend to view it that the lack of trust preceded the disobedience, they weren’t aware that the serpent was undermining their trust in the Lord.

And, it’s actually in this part of the story that we do have liberty to ask if the story of the serpent and the tree are historic or symbolic. Adam and Eve did exist. They were innocent and living fully in the presence of God’s grace and gifts. And they did lose trust, choose to disobey and sin against God. But the rule they disobeyed “Don’t eat from this tree?” Was there actually a talking serpent? Or maybe it was a leviathan (sea serpent, giant snake) as some point out it could be translated to mean… Or are these elements symbolic and representative of the writer’s inability to fully comprehend God’s inspiration for this writing?

That may not matter, but what does matter is that the Truth is present whether the tree and serpent were fact or symbolic. There was a first man and a first woman. Something set the first woman’s mind to thinking her freedom to decide made her judgement superior to God’s Wisdom and got her thinking that maybe she couldn’t trust God. So she chose to disobey Him. And when she went to the first man, her husband and the spiritual head of the family, instead of doing what God had made him to do - defend his wife, lead her to God, be a man that trusts in God and obeys Him - he also turned against Him, like the woman chose to disobey God in disregarding his rules, the man chose to disobey by denying his God given purpose… And at that point they both had experienced evil for the first time, coming to know the difference between good and evil.

 

[Joe_5859]

What is “speculative theology” exactly? Is it permitted/encouraged/discouraged/ for laymen and women? Because I think that Adam and Eve’s motivation might be the ‘‘theory’’ part of what my youth director wanted us to think about. If ''speculative theology is encouraged (or at least permitted) then can I get your opinions on what Adam and Eve’s motivation might have been?

Actually, I technically used the term “speculative theology” incorrectly. It has more to do with metaphysics. But you understood me correctly anyway.

I basically meant we were entering territory for which we don’t have an official, definitive answer. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with such hypothesizing, so long as we acknowledge that doctrine is the fence that keeps us corraled in from theologizing our way into heresy. If you’re doing this in the context of a youth group with a solid youth group leader, you’ll probably be fine.

I’ve heard this before too! It does make sense… but why wouldn’t the Bible say ‘‘dragon’’ then? Then we would understand the ‘‘fear factor’’.

That’s the question. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, so it’s really a matter of translation. The same Hebrew word gets translated differently at different times. I’m no scholar in terms of ancient biblical languages, though, so I really couldn’t say why.

Wouldn’t it be more like Mary deciding to spit in God’s face? Times a million?!?!?

Well, Mary also had the preternatural gifts as she was conceived without Original Sin, so it would be like Mary spitting in God’s face. Times one.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think this is quite correct.

I agree both Adam and Eve had the capacity to know good and evil (intellect), but they had experienced nothing but good so did not know evil.

CCC 398 Adam “chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.”
emphasis mine.

Evil can be described in many ways such as the absence of good. Adam chose an action which he knew to be evil because he knew it was against his own good.

CCC 396 explains the requirements of Adam’s creaturely status mentioned in CCC 398 The second sentence says: “A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.” The concluding sentence is: “Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.” Adam knew what free submission to God was since he was given a command regarding obedience.

Yes, Adam was innocent. Being innocent does not exclude the knowledge of evil. For example, the murder of the Grimes sisters was evil. Yet, that story was often used to warn innocent children about the evils in the world. Chicago’s youth did not have to experience what the Grimes sisters experienced in order to have knowledge of evil and to understand its consequences.

 

[grannymh]

Well, Mary also had the preternatural gifts as she was conceived without Original Sin, so it would be like Mary spitting in God’s face. Times one.

Sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts including immortality, were given to Adam before the “Fall”. His Original Sin is contracted as a state in his descendants and not as a personal act. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases Original Sin and turns a person back toward God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-409)

 

[jimcook87]

Being innocent does not exclude the knowledge of evil. For example, the murder of the Grimes sisters was evil. Yet, that story was often used to warn innocent children about the evils in the world. Chicago’s youth did not have to experience what the Grimes sisters experienced in order to have knowledge of evil and to understand its consequences.

Your comparison is flawed.

The youth of Chicago are not born innocent, they are born with original sin giving them a spiritual experience and knowledge of evil. We are all born with this spiritual experience and therefore have the initial knowledge you assume Adam also had.

How do you rectify your position that Adam did know evil before he sinned with Gen 3:22? “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil!”

 

[Benadam]

Your comparison is flawed.

The youth of Chicago are not born innocent, they are born with original sin giving them a spiritual experience and knowledge of evil. We are all born with this spiritual experience and therefore have the initial knowledge you assume Adam also had.

How do you rectify your position that Adam did know evil before he sinned with Gen 3:22? “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil!”

Jim, in Gen 2
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone:
The status quo, so to speak, had become evil.
God revealed evil to Adam.

The tree in the middle. The serpent seems not to distinguish the tree he is living in from any of the other trees. Did God really say you couldn’t eat from *any *of the trees in the Garden?
Perhaps that’s the way things look from the tree in the middle.

We bit into and swallowed some tasty ego.

 

[jimcook87]

Jim, in Gen 2
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone:
The status quo, so to speak, had become evil.
God revealed evil to Adam.

I think I’m misunderstanding you because what I’m understanding you to say is that God created man alone and that threw the world into a state of evil… God created evil? It isn’t the result of man’s free will and rebellion, but that God created only man?