Interpreting Suffering and God's Plan for Creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeannetteCML
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JeannetteCML

Guest
I have tried asking this question in previous threads as some of you may know. And since it is still bothering me… and in case there are any additional people out there who would like to address it, I’m going to ask it again.

First of all, I would like to say that I consider myself Catholic. I would like to believe that the Church has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture (not an easy task) and I believe Scripture is inspired. I believe God to be all good and entirely perfect and wise. I believe miracles are possible. And I believe that all life has come about through natural and supernatural processes.

But I would like to know whether we are called to believe in the miracle of God placing the first human beings in a Paradise, especially while all natural processes of life and death, pain and suffering had been going on for eons before men and women came on the scene. It doesn’t add up.

It would make more sense to me that humans were placed in the same earthly struggle that every other organism came about in. Did God really intend to make such an exception for humans? And if so, how did He intend to sustain this plan for the generations of humans that were to come about on earth?

The following passages from the Catechism cause particular trouble for me. And I put them in context, as well as link to Genesis below…

376 …As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.

374
The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

378
The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.

375
The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition…
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Part 1; Article 1

IV. Man in Paradise

374
The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375
The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice."250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in . . . divine life."251
376
By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice.”
377
The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
378
The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it.” Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
379
This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.
Genesis 2 and 3:

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202;&version=31;

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31
 
But I would like to know whether we are called to believe in the miracle of God placing the first human beings in a Paradise, especially while all natural processes of life and death, pain and suffering had been going on for eons before men and women came on the scene. It doesn’t add up

First off how could there be suffering pain and death before man was created? it was through mans sin and rejection to Gods command that death came into beign,as well as pain and suffering.All things that God created are good. he did not create death or demons or anything wicked. those things came into being by free will. the free will to seperate yourself from the very thing that sustains life and goodness. When created the earth was good and the garden of eden IS paradise, it still exist and has been hidden from us since sin.

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

we see these things of suffering and death and pain coming into existance after man choose to disobey Gods command.

the way i see it, Jesus said i am the alpha and omega,the beginning and the end. all things that are seen or of this natural world planets , solar systems, animals etc.came into existance through jesus created by the will of the father and by his grace through the Holy spirit. All these things along with man have a beginning and an end. Because an animal or organism has a beginning and an end does not imply death. None of these things have the free will to disobey their creator. But to man god gave a soul and free will,and for man (male or female) to seperate himself from the creator by free will does imply death because we choose to cut ourselves off from that which sustains life and by which nothing exist. we read in revelation that death and hell will have the same fate as those who chose by their free will to reject the one who created them.
Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

How great is the mercy of our creator, that he should reconcile us to himself and not judge us according to our sin, but through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son Jesus, we might be able to return to paradise once again.
 
First of all, I would like to say that I consider myself Catholic. I would like to believe that the Church has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture (not an easy task) and I believe Scripture is inspired. I believe God to be all good and entirely perfect and wise. I believe miracles are possible. And I believe that all life has come about through natural and supernatural processes.

You say you would like to believe the Church has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture. does that mean that you are not sure?

It is imprtant to trust fully in the Church to which you belong.
James points out the importance of not doubting.
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord

Jesus said whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose is loosed. He trusts the Church which he created and said the gates of hell will not previal over it.

Jesus choose 12 apostles and yet 1 betrayed him. the Church also has many members and some betray it,but that does not rule out the Churches authority to govern the elect.

So do not be afraid to trust fully in that to which you belong, but strengthen your faith all the more. and know that Jesus has sent the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of Truth that guides the Church,and that Jesus will be with us always.
 
I look on suffering and the effects of original sin and see a plan that is answered in the new testament. God did not intend suffering and sin for anyone. Yet he allowed the temptation of Adam and Eve. Who I believe were in a state of grace before their willful choice. A recent catholic radio announcer likened the fall to a rich man who spent all of his wealth before he died leaving nothing for his descendents.

So how to rectify this? Only by incorporating mankind into the plan of salvation can you purify their wills that are inclined to be warped. Yet it is true that the murderer and the murdered suffer and both are loved by God.

This leads me to my understanding of suffering in the body of Christ. The Church is the only one who has the authority to fight evil and end it. So take the sexual abuse scandal , God brought the ugliness home where it could be ended once and for all. As embaressing as it may be to have the scandal brought to the body of Christ, this is the one place on earth where we can have final healing. For every pedifile priest that confesses his depravity, for every victim that receives the sacrament of healing, or confesses sins committed compulsively , we the Church, we the body of mankind are strengthened once and for all .

This I see as part of our plan for suffering. We can only imagine the horrors and humiliations of the Passion. But we were being broken down and recreated and in our suffering now we are brought to the depths that he went to to sanctify.

This is hard to explain but I can only repeat that God loves the suffering of the murderer, for her recognizes the scouraged Christ and God loves the murderered for he recognizes the scouraged Christ. They are one in the same to him, neither being a part of his plan for salvation.
 
Would either of you disagree that suffering and death are the lot of the animals in the chain of evolution and that humans are a part of that chain?
 
Seriously… there were such things as viruses, bacteria and diseases, natural “disasters,” carnivorous animals, and natural selection all part of earth before humans. Would it not be an exception of the nature of things for our first parents to be protected from these things in a Paradise? Would it not be a miracle? Are we supposed to believe that’s what happened?
 
This is interesting. It’s from the writings of the mystic Mary of Agreda:

"On account of the merits of Christ, our Savior, the graces and gifts were prearranged, and also original justice, if they would only preserve it.

The fall of Adam was foreseen and in him that of all others, except of the Queen, who did not enter into this decree. As a remedy, it was ordained that the most holy humanity should be capable of suffering.

The predestined were chosen by free grace, and the foreknown were reprobated with exact justice. All that was convenient and necessary for the conservation of the human race and for obtaining the end of the Redemption and the Predestination, was preordained, without interfering with the free will of men; for such ordainment was more conformable to God’s nature and to divine equity. There was no injustice done to them, for if with their free will they could sin, so also could they abstain from sin by the means of grace and the light of reason. God violated the right of no one nor denied to any one that which is necessary."

Once again, the apparent discrepancy vanishes when the account of Genesis is seen properly as written in the style of MYTHICAL literature. The Garden of Eden and the person of Adam are simply part of this myth, if not a part of scientific history, although this mythical language bleeds right into the Catechism. With an appreciation for this distinction, I believe there is no contradiction between the scientific and the religious truths here.
 
If I may offer my thoughts on this topic…

I maintain that the doctrine of Original Sin as understood by Catholics and other Christians is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

Catholicism defines Original Sin as an act against God’s command. This is basic christian dogma:
"Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, π 100​
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching demands that we accept the real existence of these two first parents in human history:
“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, π 390​
Click to expand...
To relegate the people we refer to as Adam and Eve to mere metaphors, myths, or other alternatives to real actual people is to undermine a basic dogma of christianity:
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, π 389​
Click to expand...
In other words, Christ, the Lord of Hosts, the Lamb of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity would not have been sacrificed for a metaphor or allegory. The sacrifice of Easter was made necessary, in Catholic and Christian doctrine, because one or two real, authentic people, the first humans, made a real choice against God’s commandments.

As a result of original sin, humanity is now subject to death. This is also Christian and Catholic doctrine:
“From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
Genesis 2:17​
“Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”
Romans 5:12​
“Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will ‘return to the ground,’ for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, π 400​
Click to expand...
To reiterate, according to Christianity, humans are subject to death solely because of Original Sin. If Adam had not disregarded God, he and all of humanity would be free from illness and corruption. There would be no death. We would be immortal.

That’s the Christian side of the issue. Now let’s briefly look at the evolutionary side.

Evolution involves genetic mutation which causes change in organisms over the course of many generations; some mutations offer improved adaptation to the environment and are passed on through natural selection; other mutations aren’t so helpful and are not passed on. If we accept evolution, we must accept the existence in the past of creatures that were “almost” homo sapiens, who produced offspring with a certain genetic mutation, a mutation that made the offspring homo sapiens. This is, admittedly, a simplified scenario, but in this context, we will call this offspring the First Human.

In Christian doctrine, this person would be considered Adam or Eve, and would grow up to be our first parent, the one who disobeyed God.

Evolutionary theory tells us this First Human must have had parents, who themselves had parents, who also had parents, etc. and he or she, being human, would have the ability to remember many of these ancestors.

Thus we arrive at a major conflict between the doctrine of Original Sin and evolution.

(continued in next post)
 
Part Two:

Thus we arrive at a major conflict between the doctrine of Original Sin and evolution.

In order for the introduction of Death to have the full effect of a new and dreadful punishment to this First Human, it would have to be a unique occurance. Death would have to be something utterly new and foreign to this individual, and for that to occur, he/she would have to have no recollection of ever having encountered death previously. Indeed, this is what Catholic Doctrine teaches, that death first came to humanity at this precise point. But this seems at odds with the nature of evolution, where lifeforms are born, grow, reproduce and eventually die. If evolution were true, this being would have had plenty of opportunities to witness death in nature, and in particular within his/her own family. Death would be nothing new.

If death is nothing new to this creature; if death is witnessed everyday in the course of normal events; if he/she has witnessed death within their own family, then how can death at the end of a long life be considered any kind of punishment? Such a creature would view it merely as the final necessary part of life; a frightening part, certainly, but not unique.

Therefore, if death is not unique and decisive as a punishment, Original Sin has no significance. It is an offense without a discernable penalty.

Clearly, and at the risk of repeating myself too much, the only conceivable way for death to be new to this Adam or Eve, would be for it to be the first time they had ever been confronted with a loss of life. For this to happen, for Christian doctrine to be true, there would have to have been NO DEATH for anyone prior to the transgression against God. But if there was no death for any living thing prior to Original Sin, the mechanics of evolution would not have worked. Natural selection works primarily because of generational turn-over . Mutations that help adapt can only advance if the holders of the non-mutated genes eventually die off. Further, if the possessor of a mutated gene that did not improve adaptation is allowed to live forever and reproduce, there would be no benefit to anyone, since both good adaptations and bad adaptations reap the same reward: continued existence. The phrase “survival of the fittest” would thus have no meaning, since without death, both the fit and the unfit would live and reproduce in equal numbers.

Therefore, if there was no death prior to Original Sin, then evolution as currently understood would be impossible.

Original Sin and evolution then, are incompatible because:
  1. If evolution is true, and death occurred prior to the First Human, then Original Sin is refuted.
  2. If the dogma of Original Sin is true, and death did not occur prior to the First Human, then evolution is refuted.
These scenarios are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true.

There are a couple objections I can think of to this scenario that are worth considering.

One objection to the above argument is to assert that the death in question is not a physical death, but a spiritual one. The penalty of Original Sin is not the physical death of the body, but the death of the spirit. If true, this would eliminate the contradiction between Original Sin and evolution by offering a death of a different sort for each. If the penalty for Original Sin is simply the death of the spirit, then evolution, which only requires the death of the body, remains untouched.

The problem with this objection is that it runs counter to actual Catholic doctrine. From the Apostle Paul, to St. Augustine, the Council of Trent, and including the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, there has been complete unanimity regarding the punishment for Original Sin: death of the body. Certainly other punishments are attached as well (including something called the “death of the soul” - see Council of Trent, chapt 5, π 2 - more on that below) but they are in addition to the physical death, and not integral to this discussion. The Catholic Church has always held the position that physical death came to humanity only as the result of Original Sin.

Also, it could be argued that Original Sin did not occur with the first homo sapiens, but earlier. Perhaps it happened to a more primitive form of human-like being, preferably one without much memory, or self-awareness, who lacked the ability to recall an encounter with death.

The problem with this objection is that it reduces Adam and Eve to the level of a lower primate lacking the basic characteristics of homo sapiens, the ability to think, to remember, and to plan. In this scenario, God doesn’t play fair, instead testing a creature one or two rungs up from a monkey and punishing humanity for the offense. Far from supporting the cause of divine justice, this argument turns God into a sadistic thug who punishes humanity unfairly.

Another counter argument is that the “death” referred to is actually the death of the soul, not the body. This argument makes the claim that God invested this First Human with the First Soul, and it is that soul which is in peril of death from Original Sin.

Aside from the question as to whether such a thing as a soul even exists, there simply is no support for the “death of the soul” within Christian doctrine or scripture. In fact, there are multitudes of references to the eternal damnation and everlasting punishment of souls of those who reject God. Christian doctrine emphasizes the eternal nature of the soul, even for those under the penalty of Original Sin. Therefore those who use this argument place themselves outside generally accepted Christian doctrine.
 
I do not know much about the theory of evolution except for the basics. I accept most of what I understand to be the concept of evolution, although I believe that there are some aspects of it that tend toward assumptions rather than proven facts. So I don’t know if I can whole-heartedly favor evolution over the doctrine of original sin, if indeed one must choose between the two. I will only say that it is my opinion, looking at things from a purely natural standpoint, human beings were already bound to suffer and die even before they committed their first sin. I favor this over the contradicting opinion that there is a CHRONOLOGICAL cause and effect relationship man’s sin and the subsequent necessity that he die physically. Yet, using the proper terms, I do believe that man’s death came about because of original sin. (I guess you have to watch my semantics.)

I would like to follow the example of Galileo, who says that when there is a question about the truth of something scientific when placed against a specific interpretation of Holy Scripture, the scientific truth should be postulated first and the scriptural statement analyzed and perhaps reinterpreted for its true meaning afterward. (However, I would like to make an exception for the truth of things done directly by God as miracles, in particular the Resurrection. But as for the truth of the normal course of things in nature, no exception needs to be made.)

Here it is in Galileo’s own words in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina:
(full text (very much worth reading): galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43841
context: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Grand_Duchess_Christina)

“…I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God’s commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature’s actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words:
We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.”

Galileo was arguing for Copernicus’ discovery that it was the earth which moved around the sun. His adversaries were quoting scriptural passages such as the following to say that Galileo’s argument was contrary to Scripture and therefore heretical:

“On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Isreal, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Isreal: ‘O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’
So the sun stood still and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” Joshua 10:12-13

cont’d…
 
Whether or not this is a good comparison for our problem at hand with Original Sin, it is interesting to note that upon the Church’s eventual acceptance of the theory of Copernicus, it was forced to distinguish, once again, between the various ways of interpreting Scripture, whether it was proper to learn from it facts of science and history, and, in our case, which things are to be read literally or figuratively. At the time, perhaps the Church was officially holding on to the belief that all must be taken literally, and no doubt, this must have affected the formulations of its doctrines.

Now that we have this freedom in which to interpret the Bible more truthfully with modern methods of biblical exegesis, and now that the Church has accepted that the Theory of Evolution has some plausibility, I believe it has long been time for our doctrines coming from Scripture and Tradition particularly regarding Original Sin to be explained on a deeper level and not as if bound to mythical forms. This takes some serious work in theology, and so far as I can tell from reading the Catechism and attending master’s level theology courses, it is work that has not yet been done. Right now, explanations are given that are more palatable to the common masses. I hate to use the word, but I believe some nuance is called for in the doctrine of Original Sin, without losing the truths that is has always been trying to protect; including that it was not God’s will that we should suffer and die except for sin, that God is just in his loving chastisement of the human race, and that Christ is the remedy. It is a scary process, as well as exciting, and yes, a lot is at stake. But much was at stake in Galileo’s time, too.

I am certain I am not the one to definitively explain what now needs to be said about Original Sin in light of evolution. I do not believe that Original Sin is inherited so much as that “all sinned” (Rom 5:12) and are deserving of its consequences. And I do believe that God had foreknowledge of man’s sin and had every right to plan and set up for the remedy accordingly. That God was just in doing this, I take from the passage I posted from Mary of Agreda who does not so much stress the chronology of the entrance of sin and death.
 
That is, to my eye, a very fair response from the standpoint of belief. It’s refreshing to read an evenhanded and honest appraisal of the issues. I am sure there are many here with a more strict, orthodox viewpoint; and you will no doubt hear from them in time.

Of course, like Galileo, you are starting from the assumption that the Bible is true, and therefore you (and all believers) are bound to devise new ways of maintaining that truth in light of any new evidence that comes along. This is a fundamental problem with Christian belief, in my view. I know because I was there, too. I was a Catholic struggling to make sense of those contradictions and hold on to my faith…

These days I am no longer bound to an a priori assumption of the truth of the Bible. In that light, I can understand the existence of life, pain, suffering, and death from an evolutionary, naturalistic standpoint. No God is needed to explain these things.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to read my extraordinarily long post above. I usually try to avoid that…
 
MerryAtheist said:
Part Two:

Thus we arrive at a major conflict between the doctrine of Original Sin and evolution.

In order for the introduction of Death to have the full effect of a new and dreadful punishment to this First Human, it would have to be a unique occurance. Death would have to be something utterly new and foreign to this individual, and for that to occur, he/she would have to have no recollection of ever having encountered death previously. Indeed, this is what Catholic Doctrine teaches, that death first came to humanity at this precise point. But this seems at odds with the nature of evolution, where lifeforms are born, grow, reproduce and eventually die. If evolution were true, this being would have had plenty of opportunities to witness death in nature, and in particular within his/her own family. Death would be nothing new.

If death is nothing new to this creature; if death is witnessed everyday in the course of normal events; if he/she has witnessed death within their own family, then how can death at the end of a long life be considered any kind of punishment? Such a creature would view it merely as the final necessary part of life; a frightening part, certainly, but not unique.

Therefore, if death is not unique and decisive as a punishment, Original Sin has no significance. It is an offense without a discernable penalty.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your logic here. It is not necessary that death be absent completely (animal and plant as well as human) for Original Sin to have significance. Seeing something does not diminish it’s meaning. (Eg. If threatened with a beating as punishment, I may actually fear it more if I’ve seen someone being beaten than if I had no concept of what a beating involved.) It’s entirely possible for Adam and Eve to have observed it in animal and plant life, but to have been given a knowledge that it would not be a part of human life if they followed God’s command. They knew that they were different from animals. (Gen 2:18-23)

There seems to be a disparity between what evolutionists and non-evolutionists perceive as the intellectual level of the first humans. Evolutionists seem to envision the first human/s as just a notch above apes/chimps mentally; whereas Catholic teaching holds that they had more knowledge than we currently do (preternatural gifts, which were also lost as a result of Original Sin).

To my knowledge, there is no definitive teaching of the Church as to whether or not death existed in plant or animal life prior to Original Sin.
 
I’ve heard of preternatural gifts before. What are they exactly according to Catholic teaching and in what part of Catholic teaching are they found?
 
Nita said:
I do not agree with your logic here. It is not necessary that death be absent completely (animal and plant as well as human) for Original Sin to have significance. Seeing something does not diminish it’s meaning. (Eg. If threatened with a beating as punishment, I may actually fear it more if I’ve seen someone being beaten than if I had no concept of what a beating involved.) It’s entirely possible for Adam and Eve to have observed it in animal and plant life, but to have been given a knowledge that it would not be a part of human life if they followed God’s command. They knew that they were different from animals. (Gen 2:18-23)
Click to expand...
In one respect your point seems to be that death existed in humans (or proto-humans) prior to Adam and Eve. As far as evolution is concerned, this would have to be true, so I agree with you here, though the Church does not.

In another respect your argument sounds like special pleading. If God used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then they would have seen the death of their ancestors and already known to some extent that their fate was similar to that which they had already witnessed. Therefore, death was nothing new.

Further, if that which separates us from other life on Earth is an eternal soul and nothing else, and if all life developed via evolution, then humans would have HAD to experience death just like other plants and animals. Again, death would have been nothing new.

To argue otherwise is to somehow declare evolution as the process for all diversity of life on Earth, except for humans. That’s special pleading.
There seems to be a disparity between what evolutionists and non-evolutionists perceive as the intellectual level of the first humans. Evolutionists seem to envision the first human/s as just a notch above apes/chimps mentally; whereas Catholic teaching holds that they had more knowledge than we currently do (preternatural gifts, which were also lost as a result of Original Sin).
Click to expand...
I’m not exactly sure of your point here. But even so, if your logic holds, then it is even more obvious that Adam and Eve would have the mental capacity to remember family members who died, and therefore to know about death, what it meant, and it’s significance to their families in the past. And they would also have no reason to assume they were somehow excluded from this natural, evolutionary process. You also posit some supernatural knowledge that was lost in the process, of which I can find no evidence in the Bible.
To my knowledge, there is no definitive teaching of the Church as to whether or not death existed in plant or animal life prior to Original Sin.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but if the Church is to pay lip service to evolution, it seems it must also acknowledge the integral role death played in the process for all life, including proto-homo sapiens, even before Adam and Eve.
 
MerryAtheist said:
In one respect your point seems to be that death existed in humans (or proto-humans) prior to Adam and Eve. As far as evolution is concerned, this would have to be true, so I agree with you here, though the Church does not.

In another respect your argument sounds like special pleading. If God used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then they would have seen the death of their ancestors and already known to some extent that their fate was similar to that which they had already witnessed. Therefore, death was nothing new.

Further, if that which separates us from other life on Earth is an eternal soul and nothing else, and if all life developed via evolution, then humans would have HAD to experience death just like other plants and animals. Again, death would have been nothing new.

To argue otherwise is to somehow declare evolution as the process for all diversity of life on Earth, except for humans. That’s special pleading.

I’m not exactly sure of your point here. But even so, if your logic holds, then it is even more obvious that Adam and Eve would have the mental capacity to remember family members who died, and therefore to know about death, what it meant, and it’s significance to their families in the past. And they would also have no reason to assume they were somehow excluded from this natural, evolutionary process. You also posit some supernatural knowledge that was lost in the process, of which I can recall no evidence for in the Bible (though I’m open to correction).

Maybe not, but if the Church is to pay lip service to evolution, it seems it must also acknowledge the integral role death played in the process for all life, including proto-homo sapiens, even before Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
 
JeannetteCML said:
I’ve heard of preternatural gifts before. What are they exactly according to Catholic teaching and in what part of Catholic teaching are they found?
Click to expand...
Here is a definition from the following website:
catholicculture.org/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763
PRETERNATURAL GIFTS
Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

I haven’t done a word search on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I don’t think it uses the expression “preternatural gifts”. Gifts of bodily immortality and absence of concupiscence come under CCC #374 - 379, 400. Was unable to find anything in the Catechism that spoke about the infused knowledge, so will quote from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

**The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) **
… In Holy Writ the deep knowledge of Adam is indicated in his naming of the animals (Gen 2:20) and in his immediate knowledge of the status and tasks of the woman (Gen 2:23 et seq.). Cf. Ecclus. 17:5 et seq.

In Gen 2:20 (naming of the animals), St. Augustine sees “a proof of the transcendental wisdom”… According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Adam, the head of the race, was perfect in knowledge immediately from the first moment of his emergence”…
“Sent. communis” (Common Teaching) is defined as a doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
So, the preternatural gift of infused knowledge is a teaching, but it does not have the status of an infallibly defined doctrine or dogma. One is still free to believe or not believe it.
 
MerryAtheist said:
In one respect your point seems to be that death existed in humans (or proto-humans) prior to Adam and Eve. As far as evolution is concerned, this would have to be true, so I agree with you here, though the Church does not.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me. I definitely don’t believe “death existed in humans (proto humans??) prior to Adam and Eve” since I don’t believe any humans existed prior to Adam and Eve. My point was that death may have existed in plants and animals prior to Adam and Eve. I said that as far as I know, there is no definitive teaching one way or the other regarding the existence of death in plants and animals prior to Adam’s sin. If there is a teaching concerning it, could you please give me a reference. I was unable to find anything.

What is a “proto human”? Is it animal or human? If it’s animal, then it’s a misnomer to identify it as human. Or does evolutionary theory posit a whole separate classification of creatures with souls that were neither animal or human, but something inbetween. (Thus, holding there would be plant souls, animal souls, ? souls, and human souls.)
In another respect your argument sounds like special pleading. If God used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then they would have seen the death of their ancestors and already known to some extent that their fate was similar to that which they had already witnessed. Therefore, death was nothing new.
Click to expand...
Further, if that which separates us from other life on Earth is an eternal soul and nothing else, and if all life developed via evolution, then humans would have HAD to experience death just like other plants and animals. Again, death would have been nothing new.
Click to expand...
To argue otherwise is to somehow declare evolution as the process for all diversity of life on Earth, except for humans. That’s special pleading.
.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that “all life developed via evolution”. It is the soul that gives life to the material elements of our body. I do not believe the soul evolved. Catholic teaching is that God directly creates the soul of each human being and infuses it into the flesh at the moment of conception.

There is a huge difference between the soul of an animal and the soul of a human being. It involves more than just the fact that man’s soul is immortal. Man’s soul includes the powers of intellect and will; he is a rational being.

Nita
 
Adam and Eve were preserved from any natural course of nature by thier being in conformity with God. we are the only creatures who have a spirit so it is only through us that we find the connection between the spiritual world and the corporeal world. For and animal to die is a natural thing and gives nurishment in its passing. the fact that nothing in this natural world last of its own accord indicates that nothing came into being of its own accord. therefore it must have had a creator. for an animal to die does not indicate suffering or punishment but Gods will. Man was seperate from these natural things until he chose to try to become like God. Pual confirms in romans that when man disobyed God sin enterd the world and death through sin spread to all mankind.
 
Unless I am grossly misunderstanding everything here, you all seem to be proving my point that evolution and Original Sin are incompatible, despite any claims to the contrary by the Church.
  1. If evolution is true, and death occurred prior to the First Human, then Original Sin is refuted.
  2. If the dogma of Original Sin is true, and death did not occur prior to the First Human, then evolution is refuted.
I haven’t yet read any clear counter argument to this contradiction that makes any sense.

You cannot separate humans from animals, saying that death occurred for animals but nor for humans and still hold to evolutionary theory because if God chose to create humans via evolution, then as they were evolving, they were also experiencing death. If God chose to create humans outside of evolution as a separate entity from animals, then you cannot also hold to evolutionary theory because it stipulates the common ancestry of all life.

In my view, it’s really as simple as that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top