B
buffalo
Guest
It is known as concupiscience. Your first paragraph basically agrees with it. Original sin is not a sin in itself, it is a stain on our being.
- Status
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I’m glad we both agree the Bible isn’t a science book.[snip]
The bible isn’t a science book but rather a historical book of events. Adam and Eve were people (a man and woman) who knew God. Adam and Eve aren’t a myth nor are they from a fictionalized storybook. An example of an event pertaining to Adam and Eve in the bible reflects:
EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION
ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE LORD
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
St Peter’s Basilica
Sunday, 6 January 2008
[snip- Please read the entire document]
The Pope goes on by stating:
From the message of His Holiness Benedict XVI on January 1st, 2008: “[snip] But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: **“All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race **to dwell on the face of the earth; they also have one final end, God”.
15 October 2008
vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop%20Monete&prod=M_2008_006.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop Monete&prod=M_2008_006.
The theological word “whole human race” as used by the Pope isn’t the same used by scientists.AMEN!
buffalo;4629924:
My point was basically about Adam & Eve and the text the Pope used, “whole human race”. I don’t think the Pope is using it to make a scientific statement because a scientist uses different terminology for “whole human race”. Now, Let’s look further into this by reviewing a segment of what Pope John Paul wrote in The Churches Teaching on Original Sin ** in which he states Man (Adam & Eve) spoke[language] to God, which in my opinion tells us they existed but it will forever remain a mystery when that happened:[snip]
Here we must refer to the documents of Vatican II, especially to the Constitution Gaudium et Spes, and with a special mention of the post-synodal Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (l984).
The source of this teaching is above all the passage of the Book of Genesis, in which we see that man, tempted by the evil one (“when you eat of it…you will be like God, knowing good and evil” Gen 3:5), “abused his liberty, setting himself against God and seeking to attain his goal apart from God” (GS 13). Then “the eyes of both were opened” (that is, of the man and of the woman), “and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:7). When the Lord God “called the man and said to him: ‘where are you?’ he replied: ‘I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself’” (Gen 3:9-10). This is a very significant reply. Man in the beginning (in the state of original justice) spoke to the Creator with friendship and confidence in the whole truth of his spiritual-corporeal being, created in God’s image. But now he has lost the basis of that friendship and covenant. He has lost the grace of sharing in God’s life—the good of belonging to him in the holiness of the original relationship of subordination and sonship.
[snip]
- Death is a consequence of sin
[snip]
It concerns a truth transmitted implicitly in the Church’s teaching from the beginning. It became the object of a formal declaration of the Magisterium in the fifteenth Synod of Carthage in 418 and the Synod of Orange in 529, principally against the errors of Pelagius [1] . Later, during the period of the Reformation, the Council of Trent solemnly formulated this truth in 1546 (cf. DS 1510-1516). The Tridentine decree on original sin expresses this truth in the precise form in which it is the object of faith and of the Church’s teaching. We can refer to this decree for the essential content of Catholic dogma on this point.
[snip- please read]
Meanwhile we note that the Tridentine decree refers to the “sin of Adam” inasmuch as it was our first parents’ own personal sin (what the theologians call peccatum originale originans). But it does not fail to describe its fateful consequences in the history of the human race (the so-called peccatum originale originatum).
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860924en.html.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860924en.html.
Peace be with you.
E
edwest2
Guest
Saying the Bible isn’t a science book is merely a slogan. It does record things God actually did, including miracles. The things Jesus Christ did actually happened, in history and in fact. It doesn’t matter if a scientist was standing next to Him when He raised Lazarus from the dead, or healed lepers instantly. It happened. God and Scripture come first in our understanding of life and creation, not science.
And I agree with Buffalo, God put the “science filter” on? Give me a break. He told His people what He actually did.
Peace,
Ed
And I agree with Buffalo, God put the “science filter” on? Give me a break. He told His people what He actually did.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Alec, thank for your reply. How would you view “original sin” if interpreted not as an actual offense against some particular aspect of a moral code, but as the propensity to sin, the tendency to turn away from goodness and charity? And yes, the visitation by a jealous God of the iniquity of the fathers on the children unto the fourth generation – if interpreted literally – is problematic.
StAnastasia
“Step into that small confessional; there, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original.”
H
hecd2
Guest
As an entirely valid observation about human nature, not restricted to specifically Catholic or even generic Christian belief, and not dependent on, but enhanced by, the story or myth of Adam and Eve as the first sole parents of humans, a story that we know cannot be literally true, but which neatly and movingly encapsulates the truth about human nature.
The observation that one’s behaviour has the potential to affect the lives of one’s offspring through more than one generation is valid, but as you say, the literal interpretation of God actively visiting punishment on children for the acts of their parents is worse than problematic.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
a story that some think cannot be literally true, but which neatly and movingly encapsulates the truth about human nature.
Just thought I would help.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thanks – that does help!a story that some think cannot be literally true, but which neatly and movingly encapsulates the truth about human nature.
Just thought I would help.
St.
H
hecd2
Guest
A story that we *know *cannot be literally true based on the fact that multiple lines of genomic data preclude the possibility of humans having descended from two sole parents and on the fact that talking snakes do not exist.hecd2:
a story that some think cannot be literally true, but which neatly and movingly encapsulates the truth about human nature.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
O
Orogeny
Guest
No, that is the result of us winning the competition. We out competed those species by eliminating them.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Competition? As in fair competition? Fortunately, animals don’t carry guns or spears
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Alec, what’s to have prevented God from magically and temporarily transferring to a snake the relevant bits of the human genome, larynx, lungs, tongue, mouth and brain that would enable it to chat up Eve? (“Hey, babe, ever tried an apple?”) After all, God later magically created enough water to cover the earth to a depth of 29,057 feet and six inches…
StAnastasia
K
Kurusunami
Guest
I’ll just bring back the old argument that: Absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary, assuming neither has solid evidence. The existence of two opposing ideas does not invalidate the existence of other ideas.
Think about the posts here.
Think about the posts here.
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually the devil took the form (or inhabited the serpent). When the devil “spoke” it could have been telepathic. No need for talking parts then.
Is your claim that God could create the universe, but somehow be limited in what He could do with it after He created it?
R
rossum
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, am I being too literalist here? I could have interpreted the snake story as metaphorical or symbolic, but I thought literal biblical interpretation was acceptable on Catholic Answers. Genesis 3 reports this conversation, with no mention of telepathic communication:
1: Now the serpent … said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree…
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Of course God can do what She/He/It wants to do with the universe. The question is whether we interpret literally all passages in the Bible, or none, or some, and how to decide in each case. That’s what the science of hermeneutics is about!
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
You really scare me.
But good, at the very least you concede God’s power.What Catholic teaching states God is a She/He/It?
God speaks to people all the time. None have seen Him. None claim that the voice was an external voice.
When the devil spoke it could be one of many forms of communication. The point is there was a communication.
R
rossum
Guest
I very much doubt if anybody interprets all Biblical passages literally. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24] - whoops, humans are the wrong species to be saved.
rossum
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
You have done something amazing! You have made me laugh!I very much doubt if anybody interprets all Biblical passages literally. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24] - whoops, humans are the wrong species to be saved.
rossum
May peace be upon you.
R
rossum
Guest
Glad to have been of assistance.You have done something amazing! You have made me laugh!
Thank you. May you attain peace and happiness.
rossum
- Status