B
buffalo
Guest
To date there are none.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
I’m with you. Some Catholics on CAF took me by surprise when I first heard them oppose Catholic teaching. My own faith was shaken until I started investigating. The result is that I now have a deeper and clearer faith than ever.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you suggesting that Adam’s and Eve’s parents were not human? This would imply an instance of punctuated equilibrium far more extreme than any saltation ever postulated by Steven Jay Gould.
R
rossum
Guest
It may be that what granny is saying is that A & E’s parents were biologically human but not theologically human. A & E themselves were both biologically and theologically human, the first two theological humans.
I suspect that this is the way the Church will resolve the issue, by separating the biological and theological definitions of who counts as human. We could then have biological polygenism and theological monogenism. That would meet both the scientific evidence and the Church’s teachings.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Do you understand that with a present, personal God, the first humans would not necessarily have human parents who had human parents who had…?
A better question. What kind of a nature does a human person need?
Note. Since determining human nature is a well-known problem which needs to be solved in regard to Adam & Eve, this is an open question.
What are StAnastasia and granny?
B
bethanysamuel
Guest
I don’t think God created a deceptive world; or did I misinterpret your post? The Catechism says God doesn’t deceive. That’s Satan’s job. Or maybe you were being sarcastic; if so, sorry. However, he did create a mysterious world. Maybe that’s what you meant
G
grannymh
Guest
Technically, as I understand, some of the catholic posters would insist that A & E’s parents were genetically animals. So the question is – what makes genetically animals human?
FYI, I have turned down a poster’s offer to contact her friends regarding some of my outlandish comments. I respect the intelligence of posters and want to hear their comments first. Obviously posters can contact any source they wish.
G
grannymh
Guest
God did not create a deceptive world. Some posters like to joke around.I don’t think God created a deceptive world; or did I misinterpret your post? The Catechism says God doesn’t deceive. That’s Satan’s job. Or maybe you were being sarcastic; if so, sorry. However, he did create a mysterious world. Maybe that’s what you meant
Your comment about a mysterious world is a good one. Some posters forget that being cute and clever does not make them equal to God.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
Pope Benedict (when he was not yet the Pope) wrote in his book In the Beginning…, about Original Sin and what is means to the human condition. Here is an excerpt from the book:
“In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
*“Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without – from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives–themselves–only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.” *
– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Beginning…"
According to this excerpt, we see here that Original Sin is propograted not through a genetic condition (e.g. through a bloodline) but through relationships. Specifically, we see the breakdown of our connection to other persons (including God). Orignal Sin is perpetuated because human beings enter a world that is mained through sin. Genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration of Original Sin and its incumbent source.
“In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
*“Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without – from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives–themselves–only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.” *
– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Beginning…"
According to this excerpt, we see here that Original Sin is propograted not through a genetic condition (e.g. through a bloodline) but through relationships. Specifically, we see the breakdown of our connection to other persons (including God). Orignal Sin is perpetuated because human beings enter a world that is mained through sin. Genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration of Original Sin and its incumbent source.
R
rossum
Guest
In this context I see genetics as purely material, referring to biological humans. A theological human depends on the presence of a human soul. Since human souls are directly created by God it is up to Him to determine which biological humans get a human soul thereby becoming theological, as well as biological, humans.
rossum
F
fhansen
Guest
That was a great quote (I copied it) but I think the “sin” present in man at birth, according to the CC, involves an injustice which explains his inability or weakness at resisting the sin he finds himself surrounded by.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I would presume that is what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he says* “…every human being enters into a world…”* in his comments. I do not think Original Sin is passed at conception. Hence, when you enter this world and begin your human relationships, Original Sin is passed to you because you are unable to successfully resist it because of human nature and its relationality.
R
razredge
Guest
I meant that if we believe that God did not create a deceptive world then we can’t also believe in monogenism (if we’re being intellectually honest at least).I don’t think God created a deceptive world; or did I misinterpret your post? The Catechism says God doesn’t deceive. That’s Satan’s job. Or maybe you were being sarcastic; if so, sorry. However, he did create a mysterious world. Maybe that’s what you meant
Some people like to lie for Jesus though.
F
fhansen
Guest
But this doesn’t seem to explain the reason why human nature with this aspect of relationalality is unable to resist temptation-or, then, why we should be held at all accountable for our failures in this area.
R
razredge
Guest
– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Beginning…"
According to this excerpt, we see here that Original Sin is propograted not through a genetic condition (e.g. through a bloodline) but through relationships. Specifically, we see the breakdown of our connection to other persons (including God). Orignal Sin is perpetuated because human beings enter a world that is mained through sin. Genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration of Original Sin and its incumbent source.
Excellent find!
Yes, that line of reasoning is similar to my own thoughts on reconciling polygenism with Original Sin.
Ironically, i’m sure of any of us mere laity had suggested such a reformulation of original sin we would be branded as heretics and told to go join the likes of Matthew Fox.
G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble opinion, you are referring to Cartesian extreme dualism. While Catholicism addresses the material and spiritual worlds, it does not accept extreme dualism.
G
grannymh
Guest
Citation please for the mentioned except. Otherwise, this is a very misleading quote.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I’m not sure if I fully understand your question so my answer may not be adequate for you. In addition, this is my personal interpretation on the matter, so here goes. We have a collective aspect of humanity (e.g. solidarity) because we share the same human nature (e.g. intelligent free willed beings with a soul) and are* relational* with each other. As such, we share the fault* collectively* despite any personal dispositions. By that same token, we are redeemed collectively by Christ’s sacrifice because of human solidarity.
Relations, by definition, require connections to other persons. If the connections are damaged, all parties part of the connection are impacted. You’ve entered into a relationship that is already flawed from the beginning and are affected by it. As such, we are held collectively accountable because the relational nature of Original Sin. This is similar in concept to being bound by the laws, obligations and policies of a nation that you are born into, regardless of your perferences, voting practices and lack of a priori agreement on your part.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
It’s in the book* In the Beginning…*
amazon.com/Beginning—Catholic-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305558318&sr=8-1
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
The soul is the simply the form of the body. The soul is what animates and gives shape and form to the body. It isn’t possible to have a human body devoid of a human soul because they are really just parts of one whole. It is similar to how the plan and structure combine with wood to create a table. If you only have the material part you don’t have a table and likewise if you only have the blueprint you wouldn’t have a table. It is only the combination of the two that can come together to form a table.
- Status