MortalWombat

Eve at least can be excused for eating the fruit, since she wasn't even around yet when God told Adam not to eat of the fruit.

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): They had no experiential knowledge of it but I don't see a basis for saying they knew too little to know that eating the fruit would be sinful.
(Fr Andrew): I see no scriptural basis for the assumption that they had any idea of sin at all--far less the sort of sin that would plague their offspring for ever and anon. [Now there's a "fair" God, huh? ]
It's not like God sat them down and explained it all...he just told Adam not to eat from a particular tree or he would die.
That day.
Adam took a chance...and lived for hundreds of years longer, according to the Bible.

(HelenM): Show me where it says they were ashamed of their genitalia in the Bible.
(Fr Andrew): Gen 3:7 & 10 Upon eating from the tree and realizing they were naked...they made aprons from fig leaves. If they weren't ashamed of something down there, it's hard to understand why they'd make aprons.

(HelenM): I don't have much knowledge of what the Christian fathers wrote. It would be helpful if you'd quote Augustine's own words.
(St Augustine): "Christ was begotten and conceived without any fleshly pleasure and so he also remained free from every kind of defilement by original sin"--Enchiridion 13,14

(HelenM): Only to get you to admit to yours
(Fr Andrew): No problem. My agenda is save the world from religion.
I hope I'm not too late.

HelenM

You don't know for sure that God said only what is recorded in the Bible. You're assuming that but you don't know it.

Hundreds of years longer, but outside the Garden and with the sorrow of his oldest two sons gone - one killed, one banished.

I'm not used to that translation but I looked it up and now I concede that the 'coverings' mentioned in the translation I'm used to more particularly seem to be loincloths. Or 'aprons' as the KJV has.

Well, I'd have to see more to know that he wasn't simply using 'fleshly pleasure' as an expression for sexual intercourse. I can't be at all sure from this that he means it's the pleasure involved in sex that causes original sin to be passed on, rather than him simply saying it is passed on whenever a child is conceived in the normal way.

When I see that you're talking about religion more than sex, I might believe you...

Helen

Sojourner553

What you are asking was how did St. Augustine -- the inventor of the doctrine of Original Sin-- interpret the bible stories to show sex was a sin.

To truly understand how he developed this doctrine, you have to understand the historical political environment that St. Augustine lived in (plus the internal workings of St. Augustine's mind).

But the direct answer to your question can be found below:

The exerpt below is taken from
http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/AUGUSTIN.TXT

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html
============================================

Adam's Original Sin

To Augustine, Adam did NOT have a free will when he was created by God.
Adam gained a kind of perverse form of free will when he ate of the fruit of
the tree of knowledge:

"The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is personal control
over one's own will." (Augustine, DE CIVITATE DEI 14,15)

With his newly gotten free will, Adam chose to do "wickedness" before God.
Instead of obtaining freedom though, Adam faced a "life of cruel and
wretched slavery". (Ibid) For man was created so that it was advantageous
for him to be submissive to the Creator, but disastrous for him to follow
his own free will. (Ibid 14,12)

This free will also brought upon Adam and Eve a "rebellion in the flesh"--
meaning sexual desire. And because this "shameless movement [ie of their
sexual organs] resisted the rule of their will, they covered their shameful
members"-- That is they realized they were nude and covered their sexual parts.
(Augustine, DE CIVITATE DEI 13,24)

Thus, to Augustine, the Original Sin of Adam and Even was sexual in nature--
the forbidden fruit of the "tree of knowledge" of which they ate, transferred
CARNAL knowledge to them. Sexual desire and pleasure was the disease that was
unleashed upon mankind. It is the act of conceiving children which transmits
this "Original Sin" from one generation to the next. Since Jesus was born of
a virgin, he escaped this curse from Adam and Eve's "Original Sin"--thus
maintaining his perfect form:

"Christ was begotten and conceived without any fleshly pleasure and so he
also remained free from every kind of defilement by Original Sin."
(ENCHIRIDION 13,41)

To Augustine, only Adam's misuse of his free will, could explain his own
personal experience whereby he "suffered" (ie felt sexual desire)--but
could not "will" these feelings away.




Sojourner

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): You don't know for sure that God said only what is recorded in the Bible. You're assuming that but you don't know it.
(Fr Andrew): It's all we have to go on. If you want to start speculating then the sky's the limit, of course...but it gets a little absurd, don't you think?

(Helen M): Hundreds of years longer, but outside the Garden and with the sorrow of his oldest two sons gone - one killed, one banished.
(Fr Andrew): The point is that he didn't die that day, as God said he would--but lived to a ripe old age surrounded by his children and grandchildren. In any case, it has nothing to do with "Original Sin", so I'm sorry I brought it up.

(HelenM): Well, I'd have to see more to know that he wasn't simply using 'fleshly pleasure' as an expression for sexual intercourse. I can't be at all sure from this that he means it's the pleasure involved in sex that causes original sin to be passed on, rather than him simply saying it is passed on whenever a child is conceived in the normal way.
(Fr Andrew): St Augustine was a prolific writer and his output is readily available if you want to learn more about his views on sex and how he linked sexual pleasure and "Original Sin". Augustine's philosophy in this regard is why the Catholic Church outlaws non-procreative sex and why Christianity in general has taken such a dim view of things sexual.

(HelenM): When I see that you're talking about religion more than sex, I might believe you...
(Fr Andrew): In this case, they're entertwined. IMO, one of the most harmful aspects of (at least) Western religion is a morbid attitude about sex.

Fr.Andrew

(Sojourner553): This free will also brought upon Adam and Eve a "rebellion in the flesh"--meaning sexual desire. And because this "shameless movement [ie of their sexual organs] resisted the rule of their will, they covered their shameful members"-- That is they realized they were nude and covered their sexual parts.
(Fr Andrew): Exactly. It is our inability to control our physical actions during intercourse (this "shameless movement" that resists our will power) that so bothered Augustine (and others) about sex.
Sex was a necessary action, but entered into with great reluctance.
Thanks for the links!

HelenM

I wish you would realize that everyone is speculating about that text. There's very little said there. You're speculating just as much as me, to say they didn't know enough to know they were sinning. You can't know that any more than I can know they did know enough to know it.

In the Bible 'in that day' doesn't always mean 'today'.

The burden of proof is on you to back up what you said with direct quotes.

I've never been part of that church; I'm not that familiar with their teachings. Anyway I thought people were permitted to try to avoid conception by having sex on days the woman is not able to conceive. That sounds like non-procreative sex to me.

In my experience Christians do not view sex as you say Augustine did.

Yes, conservative Christians teach that sex is for marriage only. But, within marriage they teach it is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed.

But I don't suppose it would fit with your agenda to assimilate that piece of information into your worldview...

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): I wish you would realize that everyone is speculating about that text.
(Fr Andrew): Who?

(HelenM): There's very little said there.
(Fr Andrew): So doesn't it make sense to deal only with what is said, rather than engage in speculation?

(HelenM): In the Bible 'in that day' doesn't always mean 'today'.
(Fr Andrew): The word used is "yom"--which, so far as I know, means a period of time between sundown one day and sundown the next. Adam did not die "in that day"--he lived for hundreds of years.

(Helen M): The burden of proof is on you to back up what you said with direct quotes.
(Fr Andrew): I've already given you a direct quote, HelenM.
Now...it's your assertion that St Augustine meant something other than "fleshly pleasures" when he said "fleshly pleasures"--can you back that up?

(HelenM): I've never been part of that church; I'm not that familiar with their teachings.
(Fr Andrew): You may want to invest some time in research to familiarize yourself with the foundations of your religion...if that's of any importance to you. Catholicism was Christianity for a millennium, and Protestantism is a reaction to Catholicism.

(HelenM): Anyway I thought people were permitted to try to avoid conception by having sex on days the woman is not able to conceive. That sounds like non-procreative sex to me.
(Fr Andrew): That's relatively new--1930. Pope Pius XI said that while "any act to “deliberately frustrate” the “natural power and purpose” of the conjugal act [was] “shameful and intrinsically vicious,” he offered up an ecclesiastical mulligan: a married couple would not be “acting against nature” if because of “natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”
In other words, if sexual intercourse occurs when it is not conducive to generating life, so be it -- “as long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”--Claudia Carlen in The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939

(HelenM): In my experience Christians do not view sex as you say Augustine did.
(Fr Andrew): Good for you!

(HelenM): Yes, conservative Christians teach that sex is for marriage only. But, within marriage they teach it is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed.
(Fr Andrew): Some do, some don't. Those who don't are influenced by Christian guidelines which condemn sex...particularly non-procreative sex.

(HelenM): But I don't suppose it would fit with your agenda to assimilate that piece of information into your worldview.
(Fr Andrew): Oh, I'm well aware that many Christians thumb their noses at official dogma--particularly when it comes to denying themselves something they enjoy or that goes against their better judgement. It's called Buffet-style Christianity.

HelenM

That's virtually impossible unless we are to say nothing about the passage and it's implications. When you assert they didn't know about good and evil you are going beyond the text, imo, because the text doesn't spell out that they didn't.

If you study more then you will see that 'in that day' can mean 'in that age'.

I can't argue strongly that it means it in Genesis 2; I think the preferred explanation is that it means Adam would die spiritually that day and/or that the process of physical death would begin, maybe. I don't know. I'd have to look it up.

I believe he said 'fleshly pleasures' but I don't believe without seeing it that he thought it was the enjoyment of sex that passed on original sin. My guess - without seeing his words in context - is that he meant the act of sex, which is enjoyable, did. Those are two very different things.

Mine is a 'back to the Bible' kind of church - see below - so it wouldn't be of much value to me in understanding my own church teachings and doctrine.

Yes, but you're talking about liberal Christians. I'm talking about very conservative Christians who've gone 'back to the Bible' and only agree with Catholics insofar as they believe Catholics agree with the Bible.

Helen

Fr.Andrew

(HelenM): That's virtually impossible unless we are to say nothing about the passage and it's implications. When you assert they didn't know about good and evil you are going beyond the text, imo, because the text doesn't spell out that they didn't.
(Fr Andrew): The text says fairly plainly that God didn't want Adam (at least) to have knowledge of good and evil. The implication is thus quite strong that Adam was unaware of those concepts.
There are many things that scripture doesn't spell out, HelenM, but as a "Back-to-the-Bible" Christian it would seem that you wouldn't be free to speculate about what isn't there in black and white.
All God said--according to the Bible--is that Adam must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Anything beyond that--any scenerios in which God lectures Adam with respect to right and wrong, and Original Sin being passed on forever--is non-Biblical speculation. Isn't it?

(HelenM): I believe he said 'fleshly pleasures' but I don't believe without seeing it that he thought it was the enjoyment of sex that passed on original sin. My guess -without seeing his words in context - is that he meant the act of sex, which is enjoyable, did. Those are two very different things.
(Fr Andrew): Augustine did not think that the act of sex was, or should be, enjoyable...it was to be engaged in, reluctantly, for procreation. To do so for pleasure, married or not, was to compound a sin.
To the proponents of an early form of the rhythm method, he said:
"The birth of children is what you most abhor in marriage, and thus you turn your "hearers" into adulterers of their own wives, when they are on the alert to see that their wives do not conceive...They wish to have no children, for whose sake alone marriages are contracted. Why then aren't you the sort of people who forbid marriage...if you are trying to take away what constitutes marriage in the first place? For if that is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, marriage beds are bordellos, and fathers-in-law are pimps"--Against Faustus 15,7
And:
"It is impermissable and shameful to practice intercourse with one's wife while preventing the conception of children."--[The Adulterous Relations[/i] 2, 12
And:
"Marital intercourse, even with one's legitimate spouse, is forbidden and immoral, if the awakening of new life is prevented."--Casti connubbi, 1930

One of the links that Sojourner posted refers to a book by Uta Ranke-Heinemann called Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. It's really a good read and will give you an understanding of the role that the Catholic church has played in our sexual attitudes.

In fact, if members of your particlar "Back-to-the-Bible" sect have somehow managed to avoid that cultural influence, they're really quite unique.