Original Sin

[belorg]

Originally Posted by tqualey

[size="3"][font="Century Gothic"]Hi, Belorg,

You know, I never really thought of things this way. And, you really started me thinking - ah, but first I must say, I don't think you exist. And, I am quite confident that no form of proof presented can really be considered believable. There is so much fraud and deceit on the internet these days...

So, you are a solipsist.

But, I'm a sport... present credible evidence that you exist... and we'll just see how fast I reject it.

How can I present dedible evidence when I don't exist?

But, since you can not do this - maybe you can answer this: what do you hope to learn on CAF?

I don't exist, so I cannot learn anything.

[tqualey]

Hi, Po18guy,

What is really of concern for me is that there is anyone seriously claiming that they do not have free will. Unless I miss my guess, I just do not see how anyone in such a condition would have responsibility for their actions. I admit ... I did not take this no free will claim seriously at first - but, it is now starting to develop into a flashing 'Caution' light area... at least as I see it. The idea that a person can be - by their own choice - denying that they have made a choice - is tragic, and very sad.

God bless

Originally Posted by po18guy

Ah, but God is love. Love is not mandated, or it becomes fear, which is anti-love. Love is a choice. You love Atheism, otherwise you would be a Christian at times and a non-believer at others - if your life is random. God gave us the freedom that comes with love: The freedom to love Him. The freedom to reject Him. The freedom to take a brick out of the wall. Do you deny free will? Who, or what then, made you begin posting here at CAF? Are you controlled then by some external factor?

I have my faith, and you have yours. What you believe about life is your faith, whether it is part of a plan, or simply randomness. Yet, even randomness is part of a plan, otherwise it would be ordered at times and random at others. Studied for sufficient time, there is order in randomness. Two drums being played in different parts of the world will occasionally sound simultaneously. This, if allowed to continue, will repeat. It goes beyond possibility, and rests in probability. There is order, even in randomness.

So, you came here randomly? Yet, you did not randomly leave. If you become frustrated with the dialog here, it is equally as likely (under randomness) that you would remain here in anger than you would leave in anger - if you have no free will. We could then choose to make or keep you angry while you had no choice int he matter. But, you do have that choice, based upon your will.

If you were a random creature, you would likely as not leave here in the middle of a post. Would not your emotions also be random, and you might laugh at negative things and cry at the positive, at least part of the time?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Grannymh,

It's nice to know you exist ...

Now for a question. One of the links you provided stated:

"Evolution does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does, however, raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them."

I see 'sin' as truly a spiritual matter - freely breaking the relationship one has with God. And, while the effects of sin (war, poverty, disease, addictions, etc) can be displayed on the human body - I do not think sin itself can in any way be examined in any type of scientific manner (hypothesis, data gathering, analysis, and conclusion).

What are your thoughts on this?

God bless

Personal sins exist and I confess them during the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. Beyond that, my interest is in the Original Sin so I really cannot add to what you are saying here,

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by belorg

I don't love atheism. I just know atheism is true. But I don't love it.

But, since a negative cannot be proven, you have faith that atheism is true. Faith is simply belief.

I have faith that Atheism is incomplete. It is belief in unbelief. That state of incompletion may be reflected in some who hold to anti-belief.

I must reflect on the conundrum of believing that something is true, but not loving it inasmuch as it represents the truth.

[grannymh]

Click headings for full quote.

This is one of the modern faith statements that is anti-Catholic doctrine.
How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?
"Original sin often refers simply to the current state of humanity, in that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)."

This is another popular statement which is also anti-Catholic doctrine
Were Adam and Eve historical figures?
"Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago."

Both are clever half truths. Of course, humanity can sin. Of course, subhumans lived before human history.

When it comes to understanding Original Sin in the first three chapters of Genesis, one has to first choose to believe in Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church. Without Divine Revelation, all that is left is a bunch of options and no certainty about eternal happiness.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by belorg

How can I present dedible evidence when I don't exist?

I’d go easy on myself here. Granny, who’s been reported to be a ‘created stone’, manages to articulate her views better than most. You should have little trouble expressing yourself from a position of non-existence IMO. BTW, what’s non-existence like? Must be a lot more peaceful than existence. Guess you can’t really compare, though. Just some thoughts-hope they’re helpful.

OK, on a less serious note I’ll get back to the topic at hand and take a stab at the following question. Critiques for heresy are welcome:

Originally Posted by fhansen

Did Adam have a "flaw"? What did Adam lack that would've caused him to make such a wrong choice?

The only solution to this question that's ever made sense to me is that creation does, indeed, possess an inherent flaw-that of being creation. IOW, even God can’t make another God; the unavoidable "flaw" of creation lies in the simple fact that it’s not God. And to combine free will with this gifted yet less-than-Godly-creation is a potential recipe for, well, a fall. IOW as great or relatively perfect God creates a being to be, that being is still unavoidably less perfect than Him, and by virtue of that fact alone capable of making a less than perfect choice. And the only good reason for going ahead and proceeding to create a universe which includes free will in the mix would be because God, in His perfect wisdom, knew that it would be worth it in the end, bringing a greater good out of the evil that would occur.

And, even as screwed up as this world is with its pain, suffering, sin and death, I agree with God that creation, my existence, is still worth it. In His plan, according to the CCC, God patiently works with His imperfect creation, the Potter molding the clay as per scripture, intending for us to cooperate in the perfecting of His universe as our wills come into alignment with His, as contrasted to Adam’s sin where God's will was first opposed.

This is the purpose of the Old and New Covenants. With the Old Covenant we’re to learn of our imperfections, of our failure to overcome sin. In the New Covenant we learn why we can’t overcome sin, and how to fix the problem. We’ve needed grace-we’ve needed God, all along, the cornerstone the builders rejected, the One Adam effectively spurned and rejected at the Fall. In Spe Salvi Pope Benedict made a simple yet profound statement concerning what man must truly come to learn:
"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope".

This is the perfection of man, to willingly obey the first and greatest commandment as he comes to realize the perfection of God’s wisdom-and of our need for it/Him, i.e. as he comes to love God. Man’s perfection-his righteousness-lies in God’s perfection; man can only achieve his own perfection as he’s united with God, in communion with Him.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by fhansen

I’d go easy on myself here. Granny, who’s been reported to be a ‘created stone’,

And the differences (plural intended) between a created stone and a person with no free will are.............

Or what does it take for a created stone to commit the Original Sin? Maybe two created stones, one the offended and one the offender?

[belorg]

Originally Posted by tqualey

What is really of concern for me is that there is anyone seriously claiming that they do not have free will. Unless I miss my guess, I just do not see how anyone in such a condition would have responsibility for their actions. I admit ... I did not take this no free will claim seriously at first - but, it is now starting to develop into a flashing 'Caution' light area... at least as I see it. The idea that a person can be - by their own choice - denying that they have made a choice - is tragic, and very sad.

God bless

Who isdenying that they have made a choice? Of course I have made a choice. The question is: was this a libertarian free willed choice? I am denying that is was, because LFW does not make any sense at all.
And FYI, lots of philosophers, both atheists and Chrsitians deny the exis

And as for resposibility. In a metaphysical sense, I do not think I have any responsibility for what I do or don't do. So some Being punishing or rewarding me for my 'choices' is completely nonsesical to me for that reason.
As for everyday resposibility, that's another question. I think no society can be viable without holding persosn accountable for their actions. So Hitler had to be stopped and punished for the sake of civilzation, but Hitler does not deserve eternal punishment.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

And the differences (plural intended) between a created stone and a person with no free will are.............

OK I like riddles even if I’m terrible at them. Created stones don't dance well and people with no free will are lousy at articulating their respective positions.

Originally Posted by grannymh

Or what does it take for a created stone to commit the Original Sin? Maybe two created stones, one the offended and one the offender?

Created stones should only be offended when offense is intended.

[tqualey]

Hi, Belorg,

So... you admit to having made a choice... and still, deny you have made it freely... Let me make a distinction between these posts. I am telling you that I have freely made a choice to respond to your post - have considered and chosen the thoughts I wish to express - and have taken deliberate and conscious effort to select the words I believe will best express these ideas. I freely and whole-heartedly admit to this. In my judgment, you have done the same - yet deny you are freely acting or give the possibility that you are being controlled by some one or some thing. IMO, your position is one of cautionary concern.

And, your statement here is truly priceless: 'I do not think I have any responsibility for what I do or don't do. So some Being punishing or rewarding me for my 'choices' is completely nonsesical to me for that reason.' Just picture yourself standing before a human judge in a real court room ... and making such a statement. I'm only guessing ... but, I'd say this human judge would show some signs of concern, too!

Admittedly, this is all guess work on my part ... But, I sincerely believe that the vast majority of human beings knowingly demonstrate that they have free will and most governments take such an understanding as the basis for laws (and punishments). Those who are medically assessed as not being able to freely exercise control of their actions - and hence not responsible for those actions - are treated accordingly in a safe environment. And, that's the way it is.

God bless

Originally Posted by belorg

Who isdenying that they have made a choice? Of course I have made a choice. The question is: was this a libertarian free willed choice? I am denying that is was, because LFW does not make any sense at all.
And FYI, lots of philosophers, both atheists and Chrsitians d eny the exis

And as for resposibility. In a metaphysical sense, I do not think I have any responsibility for what I do or don't do. So some Being punishing or rewarding me for my 'choices' is completely nonsesical to me for that reason.
As for everyday resposibility, that's another question. I think no society can be viable without holding persosn accountable for their actions. So Hitler had to be stopped and punished for the sake of civilzation, but Hitler does not deserve eternal punishment.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by fhansen

OK I like riddles even if I’m terrible at them. Created stones don't dance well and people with no free will are lousy at articulating their respective positions.

Created stones should only be offended when offense is intended.

Riddles invite one to think in different ways which is an important skill. The fact that sometimes a riddle or a problem needs a variety of perspectives or different ways of seeing it does not insure that any of those different ways is the correct one or the complete solution. Yet, opening one's mind to different possibilities is very important.

Problems and riddles are similar in that often stepping back from the situation is helpful. Riddles invite one to search deeper. The relationship between Adam and God is like a riddle that invites us to search deeper than the ordinary human interactions which we see in the 21st century.

[alanave]

Thank you for the JPII quotes, Catholic1seeks Especially..

"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil recalls symbolically the absolute limit which man as a creature must recognize and respect. Man depends on the Creator and is subject to the laws by which the Creator has established the order of the world which he created, the essential order of existence (ordo rerum); therefore man is also subject to the moral norms which regulate the use of freedom. The primordial test is, therefore, aimed at the person's free will, at his freedom. Will man confirm the fundamental order of creation in his conduct and recognize the truth that he himself is created—the truth of the dignity that belongs to him as the image of God but also the truth of his creaturely limitation?"

My question is...did God know, by posing the test in the first place, the inevitablity of Adam's sin? Adam was innocent in the ways of morality..won't all men (creatures) test their creaturehood...Even angels fell..Did God not know the need of a Saviour at the very moment of creation??? Satan fell...

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by alanave

Thank you for the JPII quotes, Catholic1seeks Especially..

"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil recalls symbolically the absolute limit which man as a creature must recognize and respect. Man depends on the Creator and is subject to the laws by which the Creator has established the order of the world which he created, the essential order of existence (ordo rerum); therefore man is also subject to the moral norms which regulate the use of freedom. The primordial test is, therefore, aimed at the person's free will, at his freedom. Will man confirm the fundamental order of creation in his conduct and recognize the truth that he himself is created—the truth of the dignity that belongs to him as the image of God but also the truth of his creaturely limitation?"

My question is...did God know, by posing the test in the first place, the inevitablity of Adam's sin? Adam was innocent in the ways of morality..won't all men (creatures) test their creaturehood...Even angels fell..Did God not know the need of a Saviour at the very moment of creation??? Satan fell...

He knew man would fall; He knew the Savior would be needed, but I don't believe it'd be in line with Catholic doctrine to say the fall was absolutely inevitable, even though I've speculated as much myself in a post or two.

[tqualey]

Hi, Alanave,

Welcome to CAF

God knows everything. And, yes, that includes the fall of the angels and the fall of man - before the beginning of time. But, I am not sure tht the term 'inevitable' is appropriate. For example, if I continue to push a book to the edge of a table - and, then continue to push the book - it will fall off the table. God was not 'pushing' either the angels or man to sin. God gave both of these creatures Free Will - and in the case of the angels, 2/3's of them chose to obey... man's results would have been rather discouraging - but, God sent His Son as our Redeemer.

Trying to evaluate these actions, puts us effectively as evaluating the decisions of God - and we really can not do that. Only God knows His Own Will. He calls the shots, we don't. Now, many others have had similar thoughts and concerns. One of the biggest pitfalls lies in the heresy of Predestinationism - here is a link to explain the Catholic position on this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

St. Augustine may be one of the more famous persons to address this topic - and, he gives hope for mankind in the Love of God. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jans...-ignorance.htm

Not all came to this conclusion - and Calvin's view of God and mankind probably catches the depressing aspect best on why some are saved and others are damned. (Calvin was able to conclude that he was amongst the Elect - but, had doubts about the assurance of eveyone else! )

Hope this helps.

God bless

Originally Posted by alanave

Thank you for the JPII quotes, Catholic1seeks Especially..

"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil recalls symbolically the absolute limit which man as a creature must recognize and respect. Man depends on the Creator and is subject to the laws by which the Creator has established the order of the world which he created, the essential order of existence (ordo rerum); therefore man is also subject to the moral norms which regulate the use of freedom. The primordial test is, therefore, aimed at the person's free will, at his freedom. Will man confirm the fundamental order of creation in his conduct and recognize the truth that he himself is created—the truth of the dignity that belongs to him as the image of God but also the truth of his creaturely limitation?"

My question is...did God know, by posing the test in the first place, the inevitablity of Adam's sin? Adam was innocent in the ways of morality..won't all men (creatures) test their creaturehood...Even angels fell..Did God not know the need of a Saviour at the very moment of creation??? Satan fell...

[fred conty]

Originally Posted by Brav3N3wWorld

Hello all,
I haven't posted on the forums for a while because I've been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I'm having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I'm going to be a Christian, I'm going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don't know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited--like our eye color, it's in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary's mother? For that matter, why didn't God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, "God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will." But this simply doesn't make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don't expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

I hope all will forgive me if I have answered questions already answered. I would take hours to read to this point. But this does seem like an important question that is so often misunderstood. I haven't read any posts so I hope noone will feel like I'm going contrary to anyone or ignoring any answers already posted.
-----------------------
Original sin is inheirited not from DNA but from lineage, because sin is not material. The sin caused them to lose God's life within them that entittled them to heaven which is pointed out by being exiled from paradise. They being exiled, we also of their lineage, are also exiled.

Mary was to be and is the Mother of God in time, and was spared from Original Sin. She was to carry God in her, and was a tabernacle housing God. Therefore she alone being the tabernacle and new ark, was spared. Nobody else is/was the mother of God and therefore noone else was spared of Original Sin. She is singular and therefore singularly spared.

Why did God test them?
Before the test, they were strong and healthy physically and spiritually. They had the supernatural and preternatural gifts. They were at peace in themselves, and with the world. They were at peace with God in the state of supernatural grace. We should not compare ourselves, in our fallen weak state, to them. They had a much more informed intelligence and stronger will power than we have by virtue of their gifts. With their strength of soul and body leaning them to say "yes" to God, their sin would be greater.

The test may not have been a tree, but something else. The tree may only be a symbol. The highest part of man is his soul, a spirit, which makes him in the image of God, who also is a spirit. Within man's spirit there are two powers; knowing and chosing. Not everything man knows necessitates a choice but at some point man's knowing does necessitate a choice. He finds himself in a position that compells him to chose, between good and evil. That is his highest power, to know and to chose, and to chose means at some point in his life he must chose between good and evil. Examining our own lives will help us to see how true this is. How many times have we wished not to be put in a position of having to chose. But inescapably we must.

So at some point in their life they had to chose. Then God reveals to us that an evil being
persuaded Eve to chose evil by motivating her with a lie. Aparently from what we read in the bible, she fell for the lie of the serpent, the fallen angel. And the rest of the story we know.

So it may be because we are what we are, spirit, with power to know and chose, that it all comes down eventually and inescapably to being confronted to chose whether we like it or not. Just living in this world puts us in that contained box of being forced to chose.

So why did God test them? He didn't. For God tests noone as I believe St. Paul said in one of his letters. They were tested because they are in a world that forces them to eventually and inevitably chose, as we know from our own experience from the age of reason to the end of our lives.

This answers "If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice." We face situations over and over where we must chose between the good fruit or the forbidden fruit because of the nature we have and the world that forces us to make choses.

God is the primary cause of us with our nature to know and to chose. But we are still able to chose which makes us the primary cause of our own sin. The only way God would have of avoiding this type of test, is not to create us as human but as pure animals, or not create us at all.

Just a few thoughts.