I am baffled, please explain

[Pallas_Athene]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails? There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

**The next question is: **
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there…

I simply don’t get it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I am a theology student at the Master’s degree level, not a graduate theologian, however during my Old Testament studies in school, we have been told we are not free to interpret the Genesis story literally. The writer wanted to show that God created in an orderly fashion.

There are many things about God and his plan for the universe that we cannot understand at this stage and will never understand until God chooses to reveal the mystery to us.

God does know all, and so yes, he did know that Adam and Eve would disobey him, however, God gave man free will, and his knowing humans would disobey did not rob them of their free will, nor did it mean that he “wanted” them to fall. Sometimes we ask someone a question knowing what the answer will be, and sometimes it’s an answer we don’t like, but that does not mean that we wanted to hear that answer or that the person we asked was robbed of free will. Just the opposite. Even if every conceivable pair of humans would have given in to sin, it does not mean there is no free will. Every human being had the ability to say “no” to sin. If God would have created another pair deliberately knowing they would not fall, that would be robbing them of their free will.

The cornerstone of Christianity is Christ. God created the world for Jesus, not for us. We, too, were created for Jesus. Even had man not fallen, Jesus would have still entered human history. We have to trust in God that the way he entered it was the best way for all.

Genesis is highly allegorical. It is not to be taken literally. Man’s fall was not caused by eating an apple. It is wanting to be like God himself, to know all that God knows. It is, in short, pride. There probably was no tree that Adam and Eve could not eat from. Their sin was wanting to be like God. It was failing to subject themselves to the will of God and to his domination over them.

Personally, I don’t believe anyone can answer your questions completely. We don’t have all the answers. We are not like God. We don’t know all he knows. God is mystery, and he will remain mystery until he chooses to reveal all to us, at the end of time, when Christ comes again.

 

[AKDee]

Bear in mind also that God is not the one who tempted them, nor is He the one who fell for temptation.

This is a typical argument against God - mankind has a real problem with the concept of suffering and sin and death. Entire books get written on the topic to help people understand.

I think it’s important, as the other poster mentioned, to realize that we do not see the big picture. Think of it from the perspective of an adult and a child. When you teach your child to ride a bike, they may initially fall. They may skin their knee, or even break a bone, riding their bike. Do you prevent them, then, from riding a bike? Or do you put a helmet on them (spiritual armor) and give them a push? If they fall and hurt themselves, to them it’s a tragedy. They’re a child. They don’t see the big picture, or even realize at that age that it’s temporary. The difference between us and God is far greater than that between an adult and a child. We simply cannot see and comprehend what God does.

Another thing to consider is that choosing to love and be obedient to God has great rewards. The Angels were not disobedient to God, and yet we’ve been told that we will be greater in Heaven than they.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I don’t know if the Catholic Church has EVER viewed this account as historically literal. I know for certain that my Jewish friends do not.

As early as the days of St. Gregory Nazianzen (c.329-290) the Church viewed this account as being symbolic of something greater than its simplistic narrative implied. St. Gregory felt it was speaking of how humans have always tried to grasp at that which belongs to God (such as truths which can only be gained through great contemplation), and that when they attempt to do such on their own, the result has always been catastrophic whether it was on a personal scale or one much large that affects all of society.

Scholars believe this account is not a narrative that describes the origins of sin as much as it explains that sin has always been with us since the very beginning. It explains that humans seem to be enslaved to something that makes them choose reliance on their own abilities instead of listening to direction from God when making decisions.

While it casts light on what Catholics understand as the doctrine of “Original Sin,” such a concept is not immediately apparent from the narrative itself. For example, Judaism has no such doctrine of “Original Sin” despite the fact that the text is derived from their religious traditions. This in itself shows that the text isn’t a literal story. It needs interpretation to have meaning. The meaning given to it as understood by Catholics comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ, implying that without further divine revelation the narrative remains a story waiting for exegesis.

 

[Antegin]

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

From the Exaltet:

O truly necessary sin of Adam,
destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault
that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

Look at what we would have lost with George and Susie. Yes Adam and Eve brought us death, pain and suffering but they also made it necessary that in order to save us God sent a new Adam and a new Eve. The old Adam took us way from God. The new Adam infuses humanity with His Divinity bringing us to God not just as His creations but a adopted sons and daughters. The new Eve uses her free will to say yes to God, not just at the annunciation but throughout her whole life even as Jesus was nailed to the cross.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

God does not test us or put poisons in our way. The problem with free will is we use it.
God did not want us to experience bad things, they just happen when we say ‘‘no’’ to God.

 

[DCNBILL]

Jesus was not a plan B. He was plan A from the start.

Creation for the sake of salvation.

 

[davidv]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey?{snip}

I believe every possible pair of first humans would have, at some point in their lives, chosen to go against God’s will. This is an inherent condition of free will.

Note: item 1 above is an interpretation of the command as recounted to the serpent by Eve. God’s command was “…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” …"

I simply don’t get it.

This is not a permanent condition.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I once asked one of my theology professors, “Why the Cross?” Why did Jesus have to suffer so when God could have simply forgiven humankind and given it another chance? After all, God can do anything he wants.

My theology professor said the Cross was primarily to show us God’s great love for us - and I’m speaking of the entire Trinity - Father (who would allow his Son to go through that), Son (who would go through it), and Holy Spirit (who dwells in our hearts when we invite him in). God could have simply said, “Well, I’ll forgive Adam and Eve, they’ve learned their lesson.” But that wouldn’t be showing his great love for us. It wouldn’t resonate with us the way the Cross does. The great Paschal Mystery has given us so much, more than simply redeeming us from the sin of our original parents.

I agree with DelsonJacobs. I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever allowed a literal interpretation of the Genesis story, and the Jewish people I know do not interpret it literally, either.

 

[Della]

Of vital importance in understanding free will and God’s omniscience is that merely knowing what a person will do doesn’t equate to making him do it.

And no, free will does not automatically lead to disobedience. We have the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary as rebuttal to that idea.

Adam and Eve need not have disobeyed and thus brought sin into the world. But, as our first parents they failed themselves and us, their descendents. To rake them over the coals and speculate about what some other first parents might have done doesn’t really solve anything.

We have a new Adam and a new Eve in Jesus and Mary. They are the new heads of humanity to whom we look for the restoration of mankind to God’s justice.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am a theology student at the Master’s degree level, not a graduate theologian, however during my Old Testament studies in school, we have been told we are not free to interpret the Genesis story literally.

It does not matter. The story goes:

1. there was a commandment
2. the command was disobeyed
3. the disobedience is the original sin.

Whether it is literal or allegorical, the meaning is the same. To speak of it in literal terms simply makes it easier to refer to the “pieces”.

If God would have created another pair deliberately knowing they would not fall, that would be robbing them of their free will.

I can’t believe my eyes. How could God create anything which is not a deliberate act of creation? A “random” act? Did God “close” his imaginary eyes, and picked a random human pair? And it is simply our bad luck that he happened to chose Adam and Eve, who freely chose not to obey and not George and Susie .who freely would have chosen to obey? Is that what you insinuate?

To say that Adam and Eve HAD their free will, when created deliberately, but George and Susie who would not have fallen to temptation when created deliberately, were therefore robbed of their free will is absurd.

Referring to mystery is an age-old cop-out. Illogical and irrational propositions will not gain legitimacy by declaring them to be “mysteries”.

It is wanting to be like God himself, to know all that God knows. It is, in short, pride.

And what is wrong with that? It is normal for every child to want to be like his father. Pride has nothing to do with it. Maybe admiration?

I once asked one of my theology professors, “Why the Cross?” Why did Jesus have to suffer so when God could have simply forgiven humankind and given it another chance? After all, God can do anything he wants.

My theology professor said the Cross was primarily to show us God’s great love for us - and I’m speaking of the entire Trinity - Father (who would allow his Son to go through that), Son (who would go through it), and Holy Spirit (who dwells in our hearts when we invite him in). God could have simply said, “Well, I’ll forgive Adam and Eve, they’ve learned their lesson.” But that wouldn’t be showing his great love for us. It wouldn’t resonate with us the way the Cross does. The great Paschal Mystery has given us so much, more than simply redeeming us from the sin of our original parents.

I liked your question, it was rational and logical. I do not accept the professor’s answer. It does not “resonate” with me at all. To say that God needed to have Jesus (himself) to be sacrificed in order to forgive us is simply crazy.

A “loving” father does not chase his children out of the house and does not curse them for their disobedience. He simply tells them: “this is the reason you should heed my advice, and obey”. There is nothing “loving” about cursing your children.

And, of course the “cross” did nothing for all those generations who lived and died before the “redeemer” came onto the scene.

Look at what we would have lost with George and Susie. Yes Adam and Eve brought us death, pain and suffering but they also made it necessary that in order to save us God sent a new Adam and a new Eve. The old Adam took us way from God. The new Adam infuses humanity with His Divinity bringing us to God not just as His creations but a adopted sons and daughters. The new Eve uses her free will to say yes to God, not just at the annunciation but throughout her whole life even as Jesus was nailed to the cross.

This is called the reasoning of the “sour grapes”. I see nothing valuable to allow someone be ravaged by cancer, even if there is a cure for it at the end. It is much better not to have cancer in the first place. (Allegorically speaking, of course.)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . There probably was no tree that Adam and Eve could not eat from. Their sin was wanting to be like God. It was failing to subject themselves to the will of God and to his domination over them. . . .

What if the tree at the centre of the garden
that defines our relationship with God,
is the tree on which He was slain,
on which He took upon Himself the sins of all mankind,
which all involve our wanting to be gods without God?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
the tree of eternal life, two aspects of the cross.
At the foundation of the world the innocent Lamb was slain,
as revealed in time in the death and resurrection of our Lord.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

Catholics, at least, must believe there was an original pair of real human beings, the parents of the entire human race, that were created in a state of innocence, that they freely sinned and were deprived of their state of innocence, and that, as a result, their children were deprived of original innocence. God immediately promised Adam and Eve an opportunity for redemption, and determined to redeem them by sending his Son to suffer and be a sacrifice of satisfaction for their sin.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey?

Possibly, but he did create one human who never sinned, the mother of Jesus. But she freely chose to obey God… And he rewarded her by creating her as the only human after Adam and Eve that was created in a state of innocence. But the reason he did so was because she was to be the mother of God.

There were other humans who were thought never to have sinned ( John the Baptist ), Henoch, Elija, etc ). But they were not created in a state of innocence because they were not to give birth to the Son of God.

But your supposed dilemma, does not detract from God’s Omniscinece, nor from his Omnipotence. That is defined Dogma in the Catholic Church. So there is no dilemma. The fact is we cannot read the mind of God. What may seem a dilemma to human reason, is not one in God’s Infinitely Perfect Knowledge and Wisdom, he has reasons we are not privy to.

If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

Your scenaro is not logical. If God knew every conceivable pair would sin, that does not mean that they had no free will. It would mean they freely chose to disobey. Nor would it mean that God " preordained " or " predestined " them to sin. It simply means he chose to create them, in spite of the fact that he knew they would sin. Indeed, that would be a strong point in favor of his Infinite Mercy, because he had already determined to send them his Son as a Lamb of Sacrifice for their redemption.

Yes, free will is a basic tenent. But your scenario does not argue against it, as just explained.

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

I think the reason is that this provided him the opportunity to demonstrate his Infinite Compassion and Mercy. It also promised to be a condition to elicite a more perfect love from his creatures. Who is more greatful, he who has been forgiven much or he who had nothing for which to be forgiven? Having been forgiven much we are more greatful, and our love is greater than otherwise.

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails? There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

He did not " put them to the test, " he allowed them to be tested, but he warned them not to test him, or they would die.

Why did he allow it? Because he wanted a proven love freely given.

If they had not sinned, there is no assurance we would not have. And what then?

cont. on next post.

L.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

post 13 cont.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall.

He did not want Adam and Eve to fail. He wanted a proven love, freely given. Nor does he want us to fail. We fail by our own free will, we cannot blame it on him. He calls us and calls us, thousands of times - but we are stiff necked and stubborn, we love our dirty little sins more than him.

That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

But that is not what he did. He gave them a command and warned them what would happen if they disobeyed. Our fathers cars and he warned us not to drive them. And if we did, we could be expected to be punished. Did he dileberately tempt us. Of course not.So why say that God deliberately tested us.

**The next question is: **
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one.

That is not what God did. He clearly warned them, It was no " trick. "

Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

Of course, but this was not the situation of the Fall. It was no trick, and they were clealy warned of the serious consequences.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

Yes there is, because it demonstrates God’s Infinite Mercy, and it demonstrates his Infinite love for us.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there.

Original sin was a personal sin for Adam and Eve, it was not a personal sin for us. It means we were not created in a state of innocence. Their lost innocence meant that their bodies would be imperfect and subject to decay and death. It also meant that there would be no salvation unless God sent a Savior. And because we are their offspings we inherited their damaged genetics and their loss of innocence. We too require a Savior.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I guess I should add, why worry about what might have been or what could have been? We live in the world we have now and it is one God created. He has given us the means for our salvation and happiness, we should use them. What he asks now is trust, to believe what he has told us to do. A good place to start is by reading the Catechism linked below.

Linus2nd

 

[Neofight]

The answer to all 3 questions may lie on Romans 5:20;…however as it relates to question 3, he may not have allowed it so he could punish, but maybe so he could show love through mercy and forgiveness.

Peace and all Good!

 

[LilyM]

It does not matter. The story goes:

1. there was a commandment
2. the command was disobeyed
3. the disobedience is the original sin.

Whether it is literal or allegorical, the meaning is the same. To speak of it in literal terms simply makes it easier to refer to the “pieces”.

I can’t believe my eyes. How could God create anything which is not a deliberate act of creation? A “random” act? Did God “close” his imaginary eyes, and picked a random human pair? And it is simply our bad luck that he happened to chose Adam and Eve, who freely chose not to obey and not George and Susie .who freely would have chosen to obey? Is that what you insinuate?

To say that Adam and Eve HAD their free will, when created deliberately, but George and Susie who would not have fallen to temptation when created deliberately, were therefore robbed of their free will is absurd.

Referring to mystery is an age-old cop-out. Illogical and irrational propositions will not gain legitimacy by declaring them to be “mysteries”.

And what is wrong with that? It is normal for every child to want to be like his father. Pride has nothing to do with it. Maybe admiration?

I liked your question, it was rational and logical. I do not accept the professor’s answer. It
does not “resonate” with me at all. To say that God needed to have Jesus (himself) to be sacrificed in order to forgive us is simply crazy.

A “loving” father does not chase his children out of the house and does not curse them for their disobedience. He simply tells them: “this is the reason you should heed my advice, and obey”. There is nothing “loving” about cursing your children.

And, of course the “cross” did nothing for all those generations who lived and died before the “redeemer” came onto the scene.

This is called the reasoning of the “sour grapes”. I see nothing valuable to allow someone be ravaged by cancer, even if there is a cure for it at the end. It is much better not to have cancer in the first place. (Allegorically speaking, of course.)

But what if the only way the child will learn its lesson is by being cursed and chased out of the house? Remembering of course that the curse will be lifted and the child readmitted instantly if they repent and ask.for re admittance. We all know.children (of all ages) with whom no amount of reasoned discussion will work, with whom the only effective techique is tough love.

Christ didn’t need to die to persuade God to forgive us. Christ needed to die to persuade US (or some of us) of the horror of sin and also of the utterly selfless and ever-available nature of God’s mercy. Some of us would, without the Cross, either think God is unwilling to save us or forgive us, or on the contrary that our sins aren’t as bad as they really are.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It does not matter. The story goes:

1. there was a commandment
2. the command was disobeyed
3. the disobedience is the original sin.

Whether it is literal or allegorical, the meaning is the same. To speak of it in literal terms simply makes it easier to refer to the “pieces”.

I can’t believe my eyes. How could God create anything which is not a deliberate act of creation? A “random” act? Did God “close” his imaginary eyes, and picked a random human pair? And it is simply our bad luck that he happened to chose Adam and Eve, who freely chose not to obey and not George and Susie .who freely would have chosen to obey? Is that what you insinuate?

To say that Adam and Eve HAD their free will, when created deliberately, but George and Susie who would not have fallen to temptation when created deliberately, were therefore robbed of their free will is absurd.

Referring to mystery is an age-old cop-out. Illogical and irrational propositions will not gain legitimacy by declaring them to be “mysteries”.

And what is wrong with that? It is normal for every child to want to be like his father. Pride has nothing to do with it. Maybe admiration?

I liked your question, it was rational and logical. I do not accept the professor’s answer. It does not “resonate” with me at all. To say that God needed to have Jesus (himself) to be sacrificed in order to forgive us is simply crazy.

A “loving” father does not chase his children out of the house and does not curse them for their disobedience. He simply tells them: “this is the reason you should heed my advice, and obey”. There is nothing “loving” about cursing your children.

And, of course the “cross” did nothing for all those generations who lived and died before the “redeemer” came onto the scene.

This is called the reasoning of the “sour grapes”. I see nothing valuable to allow someone be ravaged by cancer, even if there is a cure for it at the end. It is much better not to have cancer in the first place. (Allegorically speaking, of course.)

Every act of God is deliberate, of course. And God does not think. He doesn’t have to. Making two people who would not sin as our first parents would not have deprived them of free will, you are correct. However, like a previous poster, I believe all human couples would have disobeyed.

Mystery, though, is not a cop-out. It is a fact. If God is not full of mystery, please tell me of what substance God is made? Where does he live? How does he pass his time? How do the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood of Christ? How was Christ resurrected? I mean physically. Please explain the physics of the resurrection to me? Many people know that God is, but no one knows what God is.

I didn’t say God needed Jesus’ sacrifice. God needs nothing. He is self-sufficient. I said humans needed it. Sure, Jesus could have said, “I love you enough to give my life for you. I love you enough to suffer incredible pain for you. I will always be with you.” But would humans have believed it? I don’t think so. I’ve had men say it to me, but end up not even willing to suffer a setback in the relationship. Many people say, “I will always love you, even unto death” to their spouse. They take a vow. And then they break it. Not all, by any means, but many.

If fathers love their children, they do chastise them at times, they do cause them to obey. Not to do so would be an act of not loving. And God was not the physical father of Adam and Eve. They did not have a physical father; they did not grow up as other humans do. (Someone had to be the first.) God did not “walk” in the Garden in the evening, either. He did not get angry and curse. God does not do what humans do. It is always a mistake to anthropomorphize God.

The Cross did plenty for those who died prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. We do not know, with certainty, that anyone is in hell, but presumably, before the crucifixion, the wicked went to hell, and the righteous went to Sheol, sometimes referred to as “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of waiting. The Creed states that Christ “descended into hell.” Why would God “descend into hell?” He did so to gather up those who were waiting and take them to heaven. Their time of waiting had ended.

Cancer is a terrible thing. I will not deny that. I would hate to be told I have it, though I do know that graces can be conferred by suffering. Those who do not are doomed to suffer a hundredfold. Both my father and my best friend (a priest) died from cancer. My father and I (I was his primary caregiver) found a new depth of love and commitment to each other when I stayed up all night sitting beside him and holding his hand because he was in pain or he just couldn’t sleep and didn’t want to be alone. My friend, the priest, and I found a new depth of love and commitment to each other and our friendship when I helped him through hours and hours of sickness from chemotherapy. Today, I wear a locket with his photo inside as a memorial to him and the deep friendship we shared. I was honored to share their suffering with them just as I would have been honored to stand at the foot of the Cross of Jesus. I feel honored to have been baptized by the Catholic Church into the death of Jesus so I could “rise” with him to a new life. I just came from a doctor’s office, and as I waited in the waiting room, I flipped through a magazine. I found an article in which a mother detailed how her cancer had been a “blessing in disguise” because it allowed her to spend more time with her two newly adopted children.

It seems like you don’t want to “get it.” No wonder you are baffled.

 

[Antegin]

.

This is called the reasoning of the “sour grapes”. I see nothing valuable to allow someone be ravaged by cancer, even if there is a cure for it at the end. It is much better not to have cancer in the first place. (Allegorically speaking, of course.)

But that’s the thing, we got so much more than a cure for cancer! We got to call God our Father, the childlike name Abba. We got an advocate who brought to humanity a physical connection to the Divine when she allowed God to take flesh in her womb. The human condition was so elevated by the Incarnation that God brought us to heights Adam and Eve could not even aspire to before the fall.

When on Easter Vigil the Church announces the Resurrection, She sings, ‘‘O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault
that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!’’ It is not sour grapes but praise and adoration for a glorious and generous God who exalted us with the remedy He created for original sin.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But that’s the thing, we got so much more than a cure for cancer! We got to call God our Father, the childlike name Abba. We got an advocate who brought to humanity a physical connection to the Divine when she allowed God to take flesh in her womb. The human condition was so elevated by the Incarnation that God brought us to heights Adam and Eve could not even aspire to before the fall.

When on Easter Vigil the Church announces the Resurrection, She sings, ‘‘O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault
that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!’’ It is not sour grapes but praise and adoration for a glorious and generous God who exalted us with the remedy He created for original sin.

Beautiful! And so, so true!

 

[SonOfMan]

The answer to all 3 questions may lie on Romans 5:20;…however as it relates to question 3, he may not have allowed it so he could punish, but maybe so he could show love through mercy and forgiveness.

Peace and all Good!

Except for the fact the Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means. So this explanation could not be it.