What was the sin within the Original Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter foxc1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foxc1

Guest
When I was about 15, and still a naive and innocent girl, I asked my aunt why was it that Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden just for eating a fruit. She responded with a laugh, because she didn’t think I’d be that innocent, that the sin wasn’t because Adam and Eve ate an “apple”. She said it was because they had sex.

Then, ever since I began reading the Bible on my own, I started thinking, if on Genesis we are told to be “fruitful and multiply”, sin would not be that of having had sex. God wanted us to have children.

Then, if this is so, what on earth was the sin committed withing the original sin? Was it the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed God on not touching the tree of forbidden fruit? OR was it something else?
 
When I was about 15, and still a naive and innocent girl, I asked my aunt why was it that Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden just for eating a fruit. She responded with a laugh, because she didn’t think I’d be that innocent, that the sin wasn’t because Adam and Eve ate an “apple”. She said it was because they had sex.

Then, ever since I began reading the Bible on my own, I started thinking, if on Genesis we are told to be “fruitful and multiply”, sin would not be that of having had sex. God wanted us to have children.

Then, if this is so, what on earth was the sin committed withing the original sin? Was it the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed God on not touching the tree of forbidden fruit? OR was it something else?
It was the disobedience but even beyond that the motivation was pride -to be like God. This is why the Serpent used that to tempt Eve. Out of envy he wanted them to commit a similar sin as his own—that of Pride.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (390, 396) says that the account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative (390) or symbolic (396) language. So it would seem that the tree and the eating of its fruit is symbolic of some real but otherwise unknown misdeed.
 
Good grief, sex?! If any couple in all of history has been joined together in the eyes of God, it was Adam and Eve. Genesis even calls Eve the wife of Adam, and calls her this before the fall.
 
The point of Original Sin was that it was the First sin. It doesn’t matter what it was–the mere fact that had sinned made them fall from grace, and meant that they required a saviour to obtain salvation (Jesus). What added to this was the nature of the sin. They ate a fruit (could have been an apple, but many Fundamentalist scholars say it is far more likely that it was a pomegranate. Either way, it doesn’t matter.) from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. One must understand that they didn’t live in the same state of existence as we do now before they ate it. They had no knowledge of evil, or sin. When they ate the fruit and gained knowledge of evil, one of the first things they noticed was that they were naked, and sought to cover themselves. This possibly would have been the first instance of lust in human history. This, combined with the fact that original sin is passed on to all human offspring, could have been the source of your Aunt’s confusion. God’s punishment for all this included being expelled from paradise, being made mortal, and the pains of childbirth. This original sin, which is removed at bapitism, is part of why Jesus was born of a Virgin. If he was conceived in the normal fashion, he would not be without sin, and therefore not perfect, and, consequently, not God.

Hope this helps.
 
by Scott Hahn

FAULT LINES
Original sin is the term we use to describe mankind’s first transgression – Adam’s fall. It is also the term we use to describe the consequences or effects of that fall. For Adam, original sin was a personal, actual sin. For us, it’s an impersonal sin, not an actual sin. But here we distinguish; we do not separate, because it’s all of a piece. There is a bond that unites sin in all its forms.

When teachers discuss the mystery of original sin, they often use the metaphor of a “stain on the soul”. But that’s only a metaphor. Sin isn’t essentially a stain; it isn’t a spiritual substance. It isn’t a thing at all. It is, rather, the lack of something, the absence of something, namely sanctifying grace. The indwelling life of the Trinity was evacuated from human nature by Adam’s sin. That’s what original sin is. We have to get at it by explaining what it isn’t. It’s the absence of something necessary for human beings to reach their divinely appointed end. The absence of sanctifying grace certainly does plunge us into darkness and blindness and death.

But it’s critically important for us to recognize that original sin is not something that’s transmitted biologically or psychologically. Yet at the same time we can speak of original sin as being something hereditary. Pope Pius XI wrote that “Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants.”

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think of fault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in the earth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastating earthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

continued>
 
Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants: One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, in a sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him, based upon two realities: biologically, we’re his descendants; and theologically, he’s our covenant head. As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, and people in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternal life is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed; and we contract original sin without consent. That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

The same thing can be said for actual sin. Actual sin can only be committed through informed consent. And so it can only be removed through informed consent. That’s why we need confession.

THE LAW OF (MORAL) GRAVITY
It can be helpful to keep in mind that sin is like a terminal – but curable – illness, one that afflicts all of the organs of the body. Only in this case, it affects the eternal life of the soul.
Are people better off not knowing that they are sick? Or how accessible (though difficult) the cure is? Are they any happier not being told how serious – but also how treatable – their condition is?
For me, the key is remembering that sin is more than breaking laws, it is breaking lives – our own and others’.

Likewise, our spiritual life is far more precious – and fragile – than physical life. And far more fulfilling, eternally speaking.

Just because people don’t recognize all (or any) of God’s laws, and how they reflect His loving concern for our spiritual and physical health, doesn’t change the fact that it’s all still true. If an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to abolish the law of gravity, and so both houses of congress voted to repeal it, and the president signed it into law – what would happen if the president and all the congressman decided to celebrate their “liberation” by jumping off the White House roof? They wouldn’t break the law of gravity, of course; their fall would demonstrate gravity, and that law would break them and whatever bones hit first.

What people often forget is that the moral laws of God are just as firmly fixed as the physical laws – it’s just that the results of sin are not as visible or immediately painful as broken bones.

That’s why the church has to get the word out – both the bad news of sin’s deadly effect, and the Good News of Christ as the only total cure. And again, that’s why we need confession.

“Lord, Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn, Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75
 
In a nutshell it is disobedience, or elevating man above God.

It is saying I know better than God so I do what I want rather than what God wants for me.

As God’s creation we should seek God’s will not our own and conform our desires, our conscience to God’s will. This is very difficult to do and can take a lifetime for some people.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Hi foxc1, I agree with everyone else who has replied. It was about the act of disobedience. I’m not sure why your aunt said it was sex, perhaps it was a pre-emptive vaccination shot for a certain precocious 15-year-old? Anyway, all kidding aside, I think it’s a good question, and it’s important to emphasize that it’s not the sexual act that banished Adam and Eve from paradise, but rather an act of disobedience.

By the way, interesting forum name.
 
dear fox1,

I might also add this: the essence of the sin, and why it merits eternal punishment is because of what it is saying.

Consider the following example: a young man cons a girl into bed, then uses her, and when he’s had enough, he leaves her.

Does he deserve to go to Hell simply because he caused her physical and emotional pain? Well, that’s not the whole picture. It is rather what he is saying by what he is doing. For, the girl is a priceless creature called to give and receive love in intimate intellect and will forever, first with the Infinitely Loving God, and secondarily with other creatures, the angels and saints. For this reason, she is immeasurably more than her body. Remember what JPII said: the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much but too little, for the woman, though beautiful in all ways, is MORE than her body, immeasurably more.

Hence, what the young man is saying is, this priceless creature who deserves total love and sacrifice, and is called to receive the same immeasurably and eternally, is nothing more than a physical object to be used and then discarded. And THAT is immeasurably insulting. Hence, the young man can never repay what he has done, for since she is called to give and receive supernatural love and bliss forever in the arms of God and her brothers and sisters, so then the young man must experience pain and torment, spiritual and physical, for all eternity.

So, now to get to the point back to Adam and Eve, it’s not just that they “took” the fruit because God said don’t take it. It’s a symbol of what they were saying: to have a finite pleasure of food is to be preferred to Infinite, Unbounded, Unending Love. Hence, the debt that Adam and Eve incurred is something they cannot pay back. Hence, only GOD can save them, and God will, by becoming one of them, and suffering for them. So that the emotional and physical agony of Jesus, because He is the Eternal, Infinite Son, has infinite value as an atonement.

Hope this helps, foxc1.

Blessings to you.

scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top