Original Sin explanation

[JMMJ]

I literally quoted the Church’s teaching, and it’s not what you claim it is. But hey, maybe psychology has taught you differently

Snark, friend.

 

[JMMJ]

Ahh, but if you only would accurately represent what Catholic theology teaches, you’d be so further ahead in the game!

One paragraph doesn’t portray what the Church teaches, as much as you would like that to be the case.

If you don’t understand, then you have been sheltered. At least that is the conclusion I am coming to.

Here is a link to help you understand. Of course ,Catholic Answers isn’t the Church, but my understanding is they have approval from the Church to fulfill their mission.

In the link, in the first paragraph, original sin is referred to as a “hereditary stain”. Not exactly the same as saying we aren’t born perfect.

Original Sin | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

 

[EugeneCharles]

Actually, that would be the creation narratives (Genesis 1 and 2), not the “Fall of Man” narrative (Genesis 3).

Thank you very much for making it clear to me!!!

 

[Gorgias]

If you don’t understand, then you have been sheltered. At least that is the conclusion I am coming to.

My conclusion is that you’re overly sensitive to the teaching. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

In the link, in the first paragraph, original sin is referred to as a “hereditary stain”. Not exactly the same as saying we aren’t born perfect.

Pretty much the same thing. I get it that it makes you unhappy, though.

 

[FiveLinden]

Probably, animals were not condemned by God and they don’t suffer as a result of original sin

So God made them to suffer, in their billions of billions, for no reason?

 

[EugeneCharles]

Of course not…

I read an article that you may not agree with but you can scroll it down to find the answer:

Is Animal Suffering Part of God’s Good Creation? - BioLogos

 

[JMMJ]

Pretty much the same thing. I get it that it makes you unhappy, though.

Well here is what I can tell you. The Church’s stance is that we come into this world needing to be “fixed”, via baptism.

I disagree. It is a teaching that causes a lot of harm to many. If religious people would learn to teach and share their beliefs by preceding them with “As a Catholic, I believe…”, then a lot of that harm could be avoided.

It is about being truthful, in my opinion.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

In fact, every time a child disoebeys his parents, he is unconsciously rebelling against God.

I don’t think the Church teaches this.

No, the Church does not teach that, and I have never said it does. This is my personal interpretation of the teachings of the Church and I think that such interpretation is perfectly compatible with the teachings of the Church.

It is a harmful concept. Childhood rebellion against parents is a natural and necessary part of human development so we can grow into self-sufficient adults who can think for themselves.

I totally disagree with your statements above; childhood rebellion against parents is by no means necessary. Of course, when we grow up, we may disagree with our parents and have arguments with them. But I referred to small children who disobey their parents, for example, when they teach them not to do something because it is dangerous and they do it the same. Actually, this happened to me when I was a child; I climbed on a rock even if I was told many times not to do it, I fell and broke my head. I think that experience taught me a lot about the original sin.

 

[Vico]

FiveLinden:

But how could an all-loving God do this, since he determined the consequences of original sin?

I don’t think was God who determined the consequences of Original Sin. At least, this is the first time I see someone suggesting it.

I think the most that God did was to tolerate the inherent consequences of the Original Sin, when he could have prevented those consequences. Sometimes, divine intervention is not good because greater goods will be lost, so God does nothing.

The consequences of the first mortal sins of Adam and Eve (called the fall) means that the descendants were deprived at conception of what would have been passed on to their children:

• preternatural gifts of infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality
• supernatural gift of grace

 

[FiveLinden]

Wow. So how does his explain the suffering of a mouse caught by a cat?

 

[Vico]

Wow. So how does his explain the suffering of a mouse caught by a cat?

See Catholic Encyclopedia on evil:
Sharpe, A. (1909). Evil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

The general teaching is that metaphysical (so called) evil is necessary, but moral and physical evil are not, but arose from moral evil.

 

[Mmarco]

Wow. So how does his explain the suffering of a mouse caught by a cat?

The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.

 

[FiveLinden]

The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.

The is a substantial literature on the suffering of non-human animals. You can Google it. There is no doubt that they experience pain and suffering.

That a loving God would allow such a thing is a major challenge to the Christian belief system.

Saying it does not exist is not an answer.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

The point is that you are simply anthropomorphizing the mouse and attributing to it psychical experience (such as pain) similar to ours. You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.

The is a substantial literature on the suffering of non-human animals. You can Google it. There is no doubt that they experience pain and suffering.

There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.

 

[lelinator]

You cannot prove that animals really feels something similar to our sensations, nor that they have any kind of consciousness. You are asking an explanation for something you cannot prove that it really exists.

Push that logic far enough and you end up at solipsism.

There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.

All that you’re really doing by asserting that animals don’t suffer is making the opposite assumption than the researchers made. That doesn’t seem logical nor compassionate. So rather than assuming that animals don’t suffer, why don’t we do the compassionate thing and assume that they do?

Ahhhh, that’s right, because then you need to explain why God allows the innocent to suffer for no apparent reason, other than perhaps a selfish one, or at best an indifferent one.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church’s stance is that we come into this world needing to be “fixed”, via baptism.

Ahh, but baptism doesn’t “fix” you, as such – you’re confusing Catholic theology with Protestant “once saved, always saved” theology.

It is a teaching that causes a lot of harm to many.

My gut feel is that you’re projecting your own feelings on others. Just a guess, though.

It is about being truthful, in my opinion.

If a Catholic is talking about religious beliefs, then the default understanding is “as a Catholic, I believe” (until it’s evident that they’re asserting their own faith and not Catholic faith. So, I’m not seeing where that preface is necessary.

In fact, in any discussion of faith, isn’t it always “I believe…”?

It is about being truthful, in my opinion.

The truth is… we’re not perfect. We tend to be short-sighted, irrational, and we get sick and will die. That’s truth, and “you’re perfect and don’t you worry about a thing” isn’t.

 

[JMMJ]

I think you may be projecting, in response to my beliefs as I share them.

Catholics believe we come into the world broken and with a need to be fixed. I simply don’t share that belief. I also don’t believe humans are perfect. For some reason you keep alluding to believing I think that. I have no idea how you “got that” from anything I posted. Anyhow, because I don’t believe we are broken (in the way Catholics do), I don’t believe an antidote (i.e. baptism) is necessary. Obviously, someone with my beliefs wouldn’t believe in the A&E/original sin concept.

I am glad you understand the importance of saying “I believe” before teaching someone what you believe. It is a step that gets missed in family households, and institutions of religious education far too often.

 

[lelinator]

The truth is… we’re not perfect. We tend to be short-sighted, irrational, and we get sick and will die. That’s truth , and “you’re perfect and don’t you worry about a thing” isn’t.

But was that God’s original intent…that we be perfect from the outset? Isn’t it Catholic teaching that we’re on a journey to perfection, or some such thing. In which case, isn’t this exactly what God intended. And if it’s exactly what God intended, then isn’t it perfect…suffering, death and all?

Oh, and happy anniversary.

 

[jeannetherese]

For the animals as well, or only for us humans? If only the latter, this seems to me so selfish.

I think this might come close to judging G-d.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

There is literature written by people who assume that animals feel suffering. You must learn the difference between an assuption and a proved fact.

All that you’re really doing by asserting that animals don’t suffer is making the opposite assumption than the researchers made. That doesn’t seem logical nor compassionate.

Compassion has nothing to do with the present issue; according to your logics, the assumtion that rocks don’t suffer would not be compassionate.
Maybe the assumtion that animals have no kind of consciousness doesn’t seem logical to you, but it’s only your opinion.; actually it doesn’t violate any law of logics, hence it is perfectly logical.
Anyway, I am making no assumption; I have only pointed out an objective truth; it is not possible to prove that animals feel pain or have any psychical experiences. This is a fact.