If Genesis isn't literal, why did Christ die? Where does original sin come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoWings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NoWings

Guest
Thread title.

Keep in mind, I know in Eastern theology that Christ’s sacrifice isn’t necessarily for Atonement, so I suppose I’m speaking to more Western types that interpret Genesis figuratively.

Also, if there was no actual “Fall,” where did original sin come from (again, the Western understanding of original sin)?

Thanks.
 
My Understanding is that as Catholics what we believe is:

God created the world from nothing

God created the first human beings from nothing, in His own image

Those humans openly chose with free-will to disobey God
thus original sin entered the world

We are all born with original sin, Baptism removes original sin
Although original sin is removed from the soul, we still sin nonetheless

So getting in heaven was an impossibility until Jesus died for all our
sins, Resurrected and Ascended into heaven.

The confusion comes in with details, if you believe the world was created
in six literal days, then you must beleive that humans and dinosaurs
co-existed at one time, which science has yet to show. I’m not
an evolution guy either but personally,I believe that although God
could’ve created the world in 6 days, b/c He’s all powerful,
I don’t think it was six 24hr days. Most of Genesis as far as i know,
isn’t meant to be a historical account of how the world
started, but rather allegorical. The above things i wrote is
what we believe as Catholics, and the rest of the details ( things like whether
the names were actually adam and eve) aren’t really that important.
 
I understand the “fall” to be mankind’s failure to disregard the selfishness that evolution favors upon achieving sentience.
 
tjm190 said:
I understand the “fall” to be mankind’s failure to disregard the selfishness that evolution favors upon achieving sentience.
Click to expand...
Unless you can cite a scientific paper or textbook that explains this, where did you get this idea? Science has nothing to say about the “fall” since it does not allow for Biblical interpretations regarding this event.

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world. That is a fact. That is why Jesus had to live, die and rise again. It was all about attonement. He was the living sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Peace,
Ed
 
It would still be nice if someone attempted to answer the actual question, ‘If Genesis isn’t literal…’

I don’t know what the answer would be but I have thought about it from time to time. It won’t change my thinking on the matter because I accept the Church teaching on it but I’d still like to see some clever person tackle the question.

Thanks,

Rove
 
edwest2 said:
Unless you can cite a scientific paper or textbook that explains this, where did you get this idea? Science has nothing to say about the “fall” since it does not allow for Biblical interpretations regarding this event.

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world. That is a fact. That is why Jesus had to live, die and rise again. It was all about attonement. He was the living sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I was interpreting a passage that was clearly not meant to be taken literally, otherwise there wouldn’t be two creation stories.
 
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]
    Humani Generis
His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine
August 12, 1950
 
tjm190 said:
I was interpreting a passage that was clearly not meant to be taken literally, otherwise there wouldn’t be two creation stories.
Click to expand...
The two creation accounts are from different perspectives. One is about God creating the universe, the other about God creating man.
 
buffalo said:
The two creation accounts are from different perspectives. One is about God creating the universe, the other about God creating man.
Click to expand...
And yet they contradict each other. Please don’t deny things proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (yes, evolution more than meets the burden of proof).
 
Science cannot conclusively demonstrate anything about Adam and Eve at this time. It’s all conjecture.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Science cannot conclusively demonstrate anything about Adam and Eve at this time. It’s all conjecture.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Science has presented the most plausible explanation for the dawn of man- Adam and Eve are not a part of it.
 
I think it was Scott Hahn in his book Reasons to Believe that gave the definitive answer of what original sin was.

Yes, it involved, as the scripture says, the eating of fruit, but it was much bigger than that. Hahn point out that God gave Adam “dominion” over all the creatures (hint: the serpent was a creature) and so what Adam and Eve did was abdiate their dominion (their king- and queen-ship) over creation. That is what made them like God and what they rejected by eating of the fruit (i.e. obeying the serpent).
 
tjm190 said:
And yet they contradict each other. Please don’t deny things proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (yes, evolution more than meets the burden of proof).
Click to expand...
Sorry - you need to do some research. The two accounts are complementary. Perhaps you believed someone you shouldn’t have.
 
buffalo said:
Sorry - you need to do some research. The two accounts are complementary. Perhaps you believed someone you shouldn’t have.
Click to expand...
One states creation took 6 days- in the second, God creates everything in one day.
 
edwest2 said:
OK. So where do you think original sin came from?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t believe original sin to be the direct result of a single act, but rather a reference to man’s sinful nature
 
tjm190 said:
Again, I don’t believe original sin to be the direct result of a single act, but rather a reference to man’s sinful nature
Click to expand...
The original sin left us with concupiscence. Original sin was an act of pride.
 
tjm190 said:
One states creation took 6 days- in the second, God creates everything in one day.
Click to expand...
The first is the order of creation, the second is the order of importance. One is chronological and one is topical.
 
tjm190 said:
Science has presented the most plausible explanation for the dawn of man- Adam and Eve are not a part of it.
Click to expand...
Really, I thought it had been determined via mitochondrial DNA (which comes exclusively from the mother) that all people are descended from a single woman?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515154635.htm

True, this was quite a while back, and there is no need to literallistically interpret the much of first few chapters of Genesis, there is nothing that has been determined by science that contradict Catholic teachings on the origins of Man.
 
rpp said:
Really, I thought it had been determined via mitochondrial DNA (which comes exclusively from the mother) that all people are descended from a single woman?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515154635.htm

True, this was quite a while back, and there is no need to literallistically interpret the much of first few chapters of Genesis, there is nothing that has been determined by science that contradict Catholic teachings on the origins of Man.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Scroll down to the “misconceptions”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top