It still doesn’t make sense to me. Any takers?
Our first parents abused the gift of free will.
The result to us is an imperfect dominion over our appetites and passions. Our intellect and will must constantly struggle to do the good now. It takes effort, pain, to do good. Before it didn’t.
Our intellect allows us to find the truth.
Our will allows us to do the good.
Together they have to work in order to tame the senses and appetites which can disrupt us from seeking the best and highest good.
To love thus takes great effort.
Effort or sacrifice is what the Church teaches us is love. The Crucifix…a painful yes.
But the more we abandon ourselves to God’s will for us, the more trust that we give Him, believing that He’s trying to bring about the greatest good in every circumstance, the more joy we sense, because of our identification with His will.
Dumb ox, that sounds more like concupiscence.
Are you suggesting that the first 3 chapters of Genesis should be taken literally? Or are you eluding to something theological?
What part doesn’t make sense?
General questions like: what is it? why is it?
It also seems to raise more questions than it answers. That can be, and probably is, a good thing, but my not understanding it remains.
That’s right…we are prone to the effects of the three-fold concupiscence(s) : the concupiscence of the flesh, the eyes and the pride of Life (see St John’s mention of these).
I’m not here to be baited into an extended chat about a literal vs allegorical interpretation of Scripture.
The Sin was the abuse of freedom, a gift from God.
Sin has enduring effects.
How I use my freedoms, affects how my children use their freedoms.
Yes, but Original sin doesn’t work that way.
The first man, the father of our race/species, damaged our connection with God so severely that it effected all of his progeny.
I guess Original Sin is more about the effects than the sin.
One question I have that Original sin raises is - if Jesus’ sacrifice is the reverse side of Original sin, then why is baptism required to wash away Original sin? And why are those who are unbaptized able to get into heaven?..where is my disconnect on that one?
It seems more like a theological concept than anything else. But the Church doesn’t really present it that way.
The most basic take home message in the story of creation and the Fall is that man needs God; he needs communion with God, in order to maintain complete and consistent moral integrity, wholeness, peace, happiness, true life. Adam and Eve thought otherwise, that they could find those things and more apart from God, in denying His authority. They essentially divorced man from God spiritually and that separation is the chief aspect of the state of Original Sin, a state we now all inherit.
And this is why the main take home message of the New Covenant is, “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” John 15:5 Jesus came to reconcile man with God, so we may commune again as is the right and just order of things. He came when the time was ripe in human history to reveal the true face of God, after years of separation, of being lost from Him, so we might develop a hunger and thirst for this God and run like Prodigals back home to Him again.
Sure it does.
The sins of another make it harder for me to struggle, and vice versa.
The sins of the First Man and First Woman make it difficult to love God as He hopes we will love others.
Our senses make it difficult to continue to do the good; but with grace (the Sacraments) it makes the struggle possible.
Adam’s sin affected all humanity
– source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin
– all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt
• human beings born into a fallen world, but they are still free
– thus, there is a tendency toward sin
– general condition of sinfulness into which humans are born
• distinct from personal or actual sins
from a powerpoint on Original Sin
so we are born with good, but our good is subject to the corruption of bad or evil if you like. we are born into sinfulness.
but whether we do evil or good is not the result of original sin, its the result of our choice.
The doctrine of Original sin doesn’t seem to fit with an allegorical interpretation of the creation of man. It also doesn’t fit with what science tells us about humans through the studies of biology and genetics. But that’s not even the crux of my not understanding it. To me, the theology doesn’t make sense. It seems to jump around from one assertion to another without any reason to explain how you get from one assertion to the next.
hows this, we all, using Adam as the author’s example, the author of Genesis,
we are all sinners.
we will all disobey God and pretend to godship ourselves.
I understand that we are all “one”. I can then understand that Original sin is part of all of us in some sense. But, to me, that would make Adam a representation of humanity, which as I understand it, isn’t how we are supposed to represent Adam.
It is thought Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile, when they were all taken to Babylon After the first Temple was destroyed. They were writing in the face of dealing with a foreign pagan people and numerous gods of that society.
So the authors are representing Adam and Eve as representing humanity. And it’s relationship with God.