Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
To follow up a little more on this, I think this quote from Pope Benedicts’ book serves to point out an injustice in man that precedes and results in his weakness at resisting sin.
"Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god."
This desire, itself, is a disorder which by its nature causes a greater disorder-the separation of humankind from God. This is what constitutes OS, IMO, and what must be reconciled in order for man to regain the strength he’s lost. The exclusion of God from mans life excludes genuine hope from mans heart, while he pursues a futile hope elsewhere. Sorry, guess I’m getting off-topic.
 
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.
I’m not certain this is a reformulation of Original Sin but a more detailed theological illumination of it. The book was written decades ago.
 
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.
So it seems there are theologians attempting to reconcile Original Sin with polygenism after all. :hmmm:
 
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.
My humble opinion is to wait for a clarification from Soldier of God regarding the words “According to this excerpt,”
 
So it seems there are theologians attempting to reconcile Original Sin with polygenism after all. :hmmm:
I not sure that was the case. It seemed to be more about defining the theological aspect of Original Sin and it’s impact as well as about redressing any naive bloodline connotations it had to many individuals. Original Sin is not about it being a disease, racial trait or genetic disorder, it’s about being deprived of santifying grace because of Adam’s sin.
 
My humble opinion is to wait for a clarification from Soldier of God regarding the words “According to this excerpt,”
I apologize if I’ve caused any consternation. Aside from indicating the source of the quote, what else are you looking to obtain from me?
 
I not sure that was the case. It seemed to be more about defining the theological aspect of Original Sin and it’s impact as well as about redressing any naive bloodline connotations it had to many individuals. Original Sin is not about it being a disease, racial trait or genetic disorder, it’s about being deprived of santifying grace because of Adam’s sin.
You said it yourself: “genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration of Original Sin and its incumbent source.” It seems the quote you gave would go a long way to explaining how Original Sin could enter into the world through a population of people rather than two original parents.

"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) 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." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12–19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1–4)

So if I’m understanding it correctly Pius XII forbade discussing polygenism because there was no apparent way to reconcile it with revealed truth. If it becomes apparent how polygenism could be reconciled with revealed truth then Catholics would be free to hold it as the theory that best explains the evidence. And I guess if polygenism is the most solid theory then there must be some way to explain the apparent contradiction with revealed truth.
 
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.
That idea is incoherent.
 
Do you understand that with a present, personal God, the first humans would not necessarily have human parents who had human parents who had…?
Granny, do you understand that you are limiting God? Who are you to arrogate to yourself the right to limit Almighty God? Who are you to declare that God cannot establish a special relationship with a community of people?
What kind of a nature does a human person need?
A human nature, of course.
 
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.
If it makes any sense at all to say that humans can be wrong, in some fundamental way, IOW that sin is real, that man disrupts the natural order of things, that Gods’ laws are broken, then there should be an explanation for why this occurs and relationality may help serve to explain how sin is propagated or spreads –how we’re tempted-but not what the dysfunction is that causes or allows for it to begin with, that causes man, unlike the rest of creation, to stray from harmony with himself and others. Shouldn’t there be a pre-existing loss of integrity associated with the fact that man so easily “capitulates to it”, referring to the sin that pursues man according to Benedicts quote?
 
Shouldn’t there be a pre-existing loss of integrity associated with the fact that man so easily “capitulates to it”, referring to the sin that pursues man according to Benedicts quote?
If I understand what you are saying correctly, I would hazard to guess that free will is the causal agent when it comes to sin. Through his free willed choice, Adam descended into sin and as a collective, humanity is held to account. Humanity cannot be justifibly held responsible for sin unless there have freedom to choose it. We easily capitulate to it because we generally make free willed decisions for our own material benefit. Admittedly, it’s a simplistic reply and I may need to rethink it further.
 
I apologize if I’ve caused any consternation. Aside from indicating the source of the quote, what else are you looking to obtain from me?
As I recall, Pope Benedict was opposing the errors in modern thought. Two of the errors are in bold in the quotation,
post 89
According to this excerpt, we see here that Original Sin is propograted [sic]** 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 [sic] 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.
People who are familiar with basic Catholic doctrine would immediately recognize that the words in bold directly contradict Catholic doctrine.

As a reader, I have the right to ask who is speaking the heresy.
Is it really reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict deliberately presented himself as a heretic?
Obviously there have been anti-Catholic catholics on CAF who have assumed heresy in the current Church, but that is another situation.

People who are familiar with the intellectual powers of Pope Benedict know that he has studied not only Catholicism in depth but also the writers who have opposed Divine Revelation. As I recall, someone posted a link with either the name or the philosophy which was promoting the above errors. Since Pope Benedict speaks often about basic Catholicism, this link could lead anywhere.

Your source link refers to the suppression of faith in modern thought. I am still going through the link, which unfortunately omits some of the published pages.

What I am looking for is the real source of the two errors in the post 89 quote above.

Blessings,
granny
 
You said it yourself**: “genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration of Original Sin and its incumbent source.”** It seems the quote you gave would go a long way to explaining how Original Sin could enter into the world through a population of people rather than two original parents.
Please refer to post 113 which asks for the real source of the errors, one of which is in bold above.
 
Granny, do you understand that you are limiting God? Who are you to arrogate to yourself the right to limit Almighty God? Who are you to declare that God cannot establish a special relationship with a community of people?
:rotfl:
 
If it makes any sense at all to say that humans can be wrong, in some fundamental way, IOW that sin is real, that man disrupts the natural order of things, that Gods’ laws are broken, then there should be an explanation for why this occurs and relationality may help serve to explain how sin is propagated or spreads –how we’re tempted-but not what the dysfunction is that causes or allows for it to begin with, that causes man, unlike the rest of creation, to stray from harmony with himself and others. Shouldn’t there be a pre-existing loss of integrity associated with the fact that man so easily “capitulates to it”, referring to the sin that pursues man according to Benedicts quote?
I am trying to figure out Benedict’s quote (bottom of post 89). Please see post 113.
 
If I understand what you are saying correctly, I would hazard to guess that free will is the causal agent when it comes to sin. Through his free willed choice, Adam descended into sin and as a collective, humanity is held to account. Humanity cannot be justifibly held responsible for sin unless there have freedom to choose it. We easily capitulate to it because we generally make free willed decisions for our own material benefit. Admittedly, it’s a simplistic reply and I may need to rethink it further.
Try paragraphs 355 to 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

I have expressed my concerns about the obvious errors in the bottom quote in your post 89 in my post 113.
 
If I understand what you are saying correctly, I would hazard to guess that free will is the causal agent when it comes to sin. Through his free willed choice, Adam descended into sin and as a collective, humanity is held to account. Humanity cannot be justifibly held responsible for sin unless there have freedom to choose it. We easily capitulate to it because we generally make free willed decisions for our own material benefit. Admittedly, it’s a simplistic reply and I may need to rethink it further.
The question involves the causal agent for why man abuses his free will-and sins-if in doing so he goes against his own nature, the will of God, and causes his own misery. The proposed answer is that by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man took it upon himself to determine right and wrong, to know what’s good for him- to be god-rather than trusting God for that determination.

And the continuation of a human-based righteousness, distanced from God, (which is due to being born without sanctifying grace and its produce: faith in, hope in, and love for God) is the injustice that plagues mankind and constitutes his loss of integrity. And the continuation of this self-righteousness/desire-to-be-god can probably also be known as pride which in any case destroys relationality which is why humility is required for our reconciliation with God and restored relationship of love with each other. Just some thoughts-maybe this doesn’t add anything.
 
The question involves the causal agent for why man abuses his free will-and sins-if in doing so he goes against his own nature, the will of God, and causes his own misery. The proposed answer is that by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man took it upon himself to determine right and wrong, to know what’s good for him- to be god-rather than trusting God for that determination.

And the continuation of a human-based righteousness, distanced from God, (which is due to being born without sanctifying grace and its produce: faith in, hope in, and love for God) is the injustice that plagues mankind and constitutes his loss of integrity. And the continuation of this self-righteousness/desire-to-be-god can probably also be known as pride which in any case destroys relationality which is why humility is required for our reconciliation with God and restored relationship of love with each other. Just some thoughts-maybe this doesn’t add anything.
For a really simple, logical explanation try
paragraphs 355 to 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

I need to leave shortly, but hope someone helps with my post 113.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top