Could a God of love create cancer cell, rattlesnakes, and earthquakes?

[asker42]

My point earlier is similar to this my main point is that if people see a problem with suffering before people, the suffering before is the result of the Fall as well.

 

[tonyrey]

My point earlier is similar to this my main point is that if people see a problem with suffering before people, the suffering before is the result of the Fall as well.

Good point! It could be argued that the Fall affected life on earth retrospectively but it still doesn’t explain why all life on earth had and has to suffer because the human race has sinned.

 

[asker42]

It doesn’t solve all problems but it does allow for fully developed people to have existed first instead of Adam and Eve having to be early primates or for there to have been humans and death before the Fall. Also, if animals and nature are affected by the Fall after it happened then it doesn’t seem to logically matter that they are affected before it happened, if before actually means after. It seems kind of counter intuitive but it also allows for there to be faith. If the Fall could just be traced back to a certain point in history then it wouldn’t be as much of a faith based Fall. The fact that the Fall cannot be traced back to in history allows for people who accept it to accept it because they know that it is true without neccessary evidence.

Again, I do not know how this fits within the Church’s theological understandings and perhaps you would know more but I find it to be a compelling understanding of reconcilling evolution with the true understanding of Genesis and not compromising one undeerstanding over another.

 

[tonyrey]

It doesn’t solve all problems but it does allow for fully developed people to have existed first instead of Adam and Eve having to be early primates or for there to have been humans and death before the Fall.

There is no obvious reason why Adam and Eve need to have been fully developed people. It was only essential for them to distinguish between good and evil. Moral responsibility does not depend on how much we know or even whether we know for certain what is right or wrong. All we need to know is that there is a difference!

Also, if animals and nature are affected by the Fall after it happened then it doesn’t seem to logically matter that they are affected before it happened, if before actually means after. It seems kind of counter intuitive but it also allows for there to be faith. If the Fall could just be traced back to a certain point in history then it wouldn’t be as much of a faith based Fall. The fact that the Fall cannot be traced back to in history allows for people who accept it to accept it because they know that it is true without necessary evidence.

This reminds me of “Credo quia absurdum”! We should believe it is true not only because there is insufficient evidence but also because it conflicts with scientific evidence!

Again, I do not know how this fits within the Church’s theological understandings and perhaps you would know more but I find it to be a compelling understanding of reconciling evolution with the true understanding of Genesis and not compromising one understanding over another.

The Church does not teach that Genesis is literally true and accepts the value of scientific evidence.