Original Sin

[fhansen]

In Gen 2:17 God says “From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” That means death results from the eating of the fruit. In other words, the fruit is poisonous; you eat it and you die.

In Gen 3:4 serpent says “You certainly will not die!” This turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, and they don’t drop dead.

No, they did die. That’s why in Christianity man must be born again-he’s born dead, so to speak, a death Trent calls the death of the soul, resulting from separating himself from his creator.

In Gen 3:5 serpent says “God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”. This also turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, they eyes open, and they see that they are naked.
God also knew they’d know good and evil-He put the tree there after all. But I’m not sure how you’d relate the knowledge of good and evil with knowing they were naked-shame certainly entered man’s world at that point.
Then in Gen 3:22 we have God saying “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” Couple this with 3:24 “He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.” So in 3:22 God provides rationale for his decision to throw humans out of Eden: for some reason, he now wants to deny humans access to the tree of life – i.e., make them mortal. But this is God’s sovereign decision. Humans are banished from Eden (and, consequently, die) because the God decides to do so, not because death is an automatic consequence of eating the fruit (as 2:17 would suggest).

The God of Genesis is not merciful; a merciful God one forgive them their trespass and keep them in Eden.

The account of the Fall needs to be looked at this way: the *natural outcome *of disobeying God is death, in the same way that the natural outcome or consequence of putting ones’ hand in fire is to be burned. In both cases the natural outcome of unnatural behavior-of opposing the natural order- is harm to oneself. If God says ‘Thou shalt not kill’, nature, itself, is giving the directive-telling us that murder is *unnatural *for man-and if man kills anyway this only proves all the more that he’s cut off from the natural order of things-that he’s separated from himself, even.

The concept of “punishment” doesn’t quite cover the full intended meaning here IMO. It’s not as if some creator-being makes some arbitrary decision to punish because things didn’t go his way; rather the consequence of man’s act of disobedience could be no different from the one stated-in the same sense that the consequence of placing ones’ hand in fire could be no different-nature, itself, has spoken.

 

[grannymh]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

My apology. Somehow, I lost the reply to this post. Here is my second try.

Would it be possible to bring me up to date as to where you are with the concerns in your opening post?

Recently, I have been reviewing some of the popular arguments against lovable Adam. For example, genetic diversity seems to be the gold standard for the science buffs who have trouble with Adam and Eve. Lost in the shuffle is the fact that there are 20,000 to 25,000 human genes. Genetic research deals with tracing select genes or select areas of the human genome. The diversity has to do with the number of alleles of the individual genes in an individual study. Thus, the so-called mountains of evidence denying the possibility of Adam is a tad exaggerated.

Without going into detail as to how researches figure out what has been happening to humans millions of years going backwards, I will honor the dedication of scientists in this area. Given the ordinary assumptions and estimates being used, it is probable that the conclusions are valid for the particular area being analyzed. However, neither the methods nor the materials which determined the “evidence” warrant an extrapolation to the universal exclusion of two founders of the human species. In other words, while the interpreters (not necessarily scientists themselves) of some particular research paper can claim that Adam and Eve are not probable, they cannot declare dogmatically that they are impossible. From a natural science position, all that is needed is the possibility of Adam and Eve. This possibility becomes a reality when one believes in the power of God to directly create the spiritual soul.

I am not sure where you are regarding the theology of eating organic fruit. However, one has to start with the friendship relationship between Adam, the creature, and God the Creator.

 

[kompaz]

"The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death,

Yes, because he could no longer eat from the Tree of Life. And he couldn’t do so, because an angel with a sword has been put between him and the tree. And who put that angel there and why, again?

Note, to say that “…surely die…” means that the fruit contains something like arsenic or cyanide or some other earthly ‘poison’ producing rapid death is not accurate. If you were to think in terms of a human relationship (like that of a husband and wife) and of doing something that will kill a relationship (e.g., marital infidelity). this may be a more accurate analogy. Man freely chose to disobey God

Except 2:17 is formulated in a way that does not support this interpretation.

Did God say, “if you disobey me, I will kick you out of Eden?” No.

Instead, 2:17 says that “if you eat from the tree, you will die”, and this is how you formulate laws of nature. So Sin leads to death is supposed to be a law of nature. Except it isn’t; it’s God’s sovereign decision to punish humans for sin by making them mortal. Likewise, marital infidelity does not automatically kill a relationship; doing so is a sovereign decision of the other partner.

But wait, there is another problem. Because the notion of sin is not defined in the text either! A sin is something which is wrong. Now, Adam could not have sinned by eating the fruit, because he had no knowledge of right and wrong prior to eating the fruit. Nowhere in chapter 2 does God say “Disobeying me is wrong”. And even if he did, that would be meaningless anyway, because wrong would be a meaningless word for Adam.

So what we have here is akin to leaving a 4-year-old in a room with a loaded gun, and telling him “Don’t touch the gun, for you will surely die”. The 4-year old, predictably, grabs the gun, points at the window, and blows a neighbor’s head off. Next, the 4-year-old is promptly caught, and put before a judge who sentences him to death. “Don’t touch the gun, for you will surely die” if accurate, but it is accurate only in a sense that ignores judge’s freedom to decide the fate of the four-year-old. It’s easy to imagine a more sensible judge who instead of executing the 4-year-old would go after the person who left him the gun in the first place.

In the scenario above, all the serpent does is to tell the 4-year-old, “You will surely not die; you will just blow your neighbor’s head off.” Paradoxically, this statement true; it just ignores what happens to someone who kills that neighbor. However, the killer does not automatically die; instead, he is put before a judge who decides of his fate. And that judge may put the killer to death, but does not have to.

God did not have to kick the humans out of Eden, he chose to do so.

So this God is both irresponsible and vengeful.

The serpent just exploits this.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

You have a unique view. But, let’s see if we can walk this through and see what we have.

Yes, because he could no longer eat from the Tree of Life. And he couldn’t do so, because an angel with a sword has been put between him and the tree. And who put that angel there and why, again?

God put the angel there to keep our First Parents out. Your attention is directed to Gen 3:24 - and, here is a link to the entire chapter so you get a more complete view, along with a commentary that should provide some additonal insights: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Genesis_3

Except 2:17 is formulated in a way that does not support this interpretation. Did God say, “if you disobey me, I will kick you out of Eden?” No.

Instead, 2:17 says that “if you eat from the tree, you will die”, and this is how you formulate laws of nature. So Sin leads to death is supposed to be a law of nature. Except it isn’t; it’s God’s sovereign decision to punish humans for sin by making them mortal. Likewise, marital infidelity does not automatically kill a relationship; doing so is a sovereign decision of the other partner.

I am not entirely sure I know what you want to know about this matter - but, maybe it would be a good idea to get a better idea about the Bible in general and Genesis in particular. If you are looking for a transcript, you won’t find one. If you are looking for some type of newspaper reporter’s account of the event, you won’t find that either. If you want to take the Genesis account as a literal presentation - the Catholic Church has no problems with that. The catch is that you then can not criticize it for not conveying the truth of the matter. How you actually approach the Bible is the key to how you will come to a greater understanding of it. Here is a link: catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis.

Even today, if you break a law, you may be surprised at all of the other consequences that develop as a result. Those sent to prison for the first time find that very little was explained to them about what jail is like. There are all kinds of rules that you either keep or are punished for not keeping, the food served gives a new meaning to ‘plain’, clothing is only a small reflection of the monotony for each regimented day. And then you have all these neighbors who are also ‘doing time’. My guess is that the average law breaker has a rude awakening his first night behind bars. Some of the new guys really do cry.

It is doubtful that any of this was spelled out to them prior to their law breaking adventure. This lack of knowledge of the consequences does NOT invalidate the punishment. The concept of, “ignorance of the law does not excuse”, has a long history: ling.ohio-state.edu/~croberts/597.02/in-class/Ignorance%20sources.pdf

But, lest you think that Adam had the same number of laws that we find ourselves facing today - please note: there was only one. And it is contained in Gen 2:17 - and you correctly gave this reference. Here, however, is a link to the entire chapter so you can see the whole story: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Genesis_2 There was only one law and it was to honor the Creator by the creature showing obedience

I gather you did not like my analogy about marital infidelity……after some reflection, I think it could be improved upon. The relationship was not really dead between God and man - God made a suit of clothes for our First Parents before they left the Garden - hardly an act of a destroyed relationship. Sin is serious because it is an offense against God - but we see (beginning in Gen 2) how God has a special love for man - and that continues all the way to Revelations. So, make up your own analogy (I’m obviously having trouble here) that involves a damaged relationship.

.

But wait, there is another problem. Because the notion of sin is not defined in the text either! A sin is something which is wrong. Now, Adam could not have sinned by eating the fruit, because he had no knowledge of right and wrong prior to eating the fruit. Nowhere in chapter 2 does God say “Disobeying me is wrong”. And even if he did, that would be meaningless anyway, because wrong would be a meaningless world for Adam.

You may be the only one with this ‘problem’ You are again taking a literal approach to a text - and then finding fault with it because it does not mention something. Our Parents were given very special Gifts by God - while there was willfullness, there was no stupidity on their part. Not everything that happened was written down - and this is true with the life of Christ, Whose public ministry lasted only 3 years - and He usually had 12 witnesses with Him. (John 21:25)

The claim that Adam did not sin appears to be a flight of wistful immaginaiton! God told Adam what not to do and Adam chose to do it. God is All Just - and would not punish anyone for what they are innocent of. Adam knew the law and immediately knew he had done wrong by breaking it. Pretend you are Adam… and now you are going to look into the eyes of God, while holding that partially eaten apple… and tell Him you did not break the one command He had given… and if you can’t imagine standing before God, try this with Judge Judy! judgejudy.com/ What more do you need?

So what we have here is akin to leaving a 4-year-old in a room with a loaded gun, and saying him “Don’t touch the gun, for you will surely die”. The 4-year old, predictably, grabs the gun, points at the window, and blows a neighbor’s head off. Next, the 4-year-old is promptly caught, and put before a judge who sentences him to death. “Don’t touch the gun, for you will surely die” if accurate, but it is accurate only in a sense that ignores judge’s freedom to decide the fate of the four-year-old. It’s easy to imagine a more sensible judge who instead of executing the 4-year-old would go after the person who left him the gun in the first place.

This analogy has serious problems. Adam was no fanciful ‘4-year-old’. A child of such an age can not commit a crime in the eyes of the law because he has not reached the age of reason. The parent that left the loaded gun with the child can be charged becaue it is the parent who knew this was wrong - even though he may not have known this negligent action would result in the death of his neighbor. Adam knew what he was doing - and he knew it was wrong. Your claim that he did not know all of the consequences is meaningless. The only issues are if Adam knew the command (and he did) and that he chose to break it (and he did). Everything from that point on is left to the Judge.

God did not have to kick the humans out of Eden, he chose to do so.
So this God is both irresponsible and vengeful.

God is totally free to do as He wills. Does the clay tell the Potter how to fashion the bowl? We are the creatures and God is the Creator. Having worked with clay before, I can tell you that I did not love the clay - and I certainly would not do anything special for a bowl I made (hopefully I will not drop it! ) Calling God ‘irresponsible’ is curious - just who would God be accountable to? That is one of the attributes of God - He is All Powerful. To say He is vengeful is more like the criticism that could be given to the pagan gods who acted as spoiled children if they did not get their way, and were quick to punish humans for real or imagined infractions to their dignity. A classic example is how Athena treated the rape victim Medusa (seeker7.hubpages.com/hub/Medusa-Lady-of-the-Snakes ) Now, that is irrational vengefulness, and is common for most gods being made in man’s image. The Real God is nothing like this.

God bless

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Your first problem isn’t a problem. Scientists have not proven the a single first pair of humans did not occur. Theirs position is based on speculation and questionable assumptions that drive the computer models they use in a vain attempt to predict the past.

Maybe, but there’s lots of evidence to suggest that we share common ancestors with other simians, such as apes.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Regular Atheist,

Maybe we do! But, don’t stop there.

One of the most amazing things I have found is the very interesting similarity human cells have to plant cells! Oh, yes, there are many differences - ours is far more complex and does do a lot of things - but, just look at the basic shape and design… and, at least for me this was a marvelous experience to see such a design used and re-used and modified and they all work well! Such a design must mean that there is a Designer.

But, cell shapes and functions are only one aspect of the Designer’s Work. The big experience I had was to see patterns that keep on keeping on! Have you noticed that no one looks to the east for a sunset, or waited for the apple to fly up to the sky rather then fall to earty, or how molecules of the same elements always combine in the same way as long as we use the same process? Admittedly, these are big or dramatic events - actually, quite ordinary, except for the fact that under no condition could one honestly believe that random change produces these repeating events!

To say there is no God, is like saying that there are not sunsets. I would think both statements odd, indeed. But, I certainly have not seen it all - so tell me, as an Atheist, how is creation explained as we move beyond the “Well we’re here let’s enjoy it” approach. I would enjoy knowing how these obvious patterns are explained without ultimately identifying a Master Pattern Maker as the first step.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Maybe, but there’s lots of evidence to suggest that we share common ancestors with other simians, such as apes.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe, but there’s lots of evidence to suggest that we share common ancestors with other simians, such as apes.

No problem with material/physical anatomical relationships. Using versions of the cladistic system of common ancestors, go back as far as it will delight you.

PLEASE see post 87 for more complete information.

 

[farpinho]

Interesting reading on the subject biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

 

[grannymh]

Interesting reading on the subject biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

Yes, very interesting reading. I do hope you recognize that Biologos, as a faith/science type organization, does not accept the Catholic teaching of monogenism, that is, two sole founders of the human species.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Another problem I see here is that kompaz is apparently interpreting Genesis in a vacuum.

Sure, if you read ONLY Genesis there are a lot of unanswered questions. But Catholics don’t do that. We have thousands of years of exegesis of the scriptures that we use to interpret Genesis, not too mention a lot of other books in the Bible. We don’t just read Genesis and say, “Hmmmm…a lot of holes in that story!”

Catholics look at Genesis through the light of the commentary of the Jewish Rabbis and the Church Fathers. Reading just the book, on its own, doesn’t give you nearly the full story.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Since some call themselves regular atheists
I should call myself a regular Christian. I hope I am. It depends on how God see us. No matter what we think about our worthiness.
Now - atheists (if they believe it or not) too will see Jesus right after their death. Amazing really, what they then will say to God. “I am a regular atheist” ? Oops. To approach to the Queen and tell her to be a regular anti-monarchist is nothing to what’s now! I mean we do know what will be and it will - disregarding if one believes so or not, since the truth is independent from human views. For one out of many we read in John 3,18: He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Or take Mk 16.16 when Jesus said: He who does not believe will be condemned.
OK atheist smile at this and think it’s a fairy tale. They will see. A child doesn’t believe that a flame hurts - until he feels

Now as to creation and original sin:
Why does a real believer simply KNOW without even obeying any teaching, that of course God created and nothing was out of itself or by coincident? Simply by watching nature. Of course there always the “evolution” went on, as plants, animals etc keep changing according to their environment. That’s however no new creation of what so ever. Creation is over and finished. And NOTHING exists out of itself. When new stars etc evolve, they do because there where others before. The discussion of “modern cosmologists” has nothing to do with creation. God’s creation was so good, that it grows and multiplies continuously. One of the many reasons why BIG BANG is downright ridiculous is, that before whatever bangs in a big bang, there must be something; some matter. Where did that matter come from??? What was there before that matter was there/existed?
Nothing results of nothing. God’s creation is as obvious as can be. And nothing could ever bang before God decided to create heaven and the universe and set the earth amidst it as the absolute jewel.

The human being for whom the Universe with the Earth was created, did not change the moment he had God’s image and breath and language. If evolution had a wee little core of truth in it, then why did all the other great brains who are even older (whales) develop to just the same intellect? Most illogical!

We do not have to believe in “Adam and Eve” as single persons.
Adam in Old-Hebrew means “made from earth” or “man of earth” or “to be human”. Later used as name for “the human being” as such. A single person is Ben-Adam (which actually means son of a human). Adamah means earth. So - Adam= a human out of the earth. As the Rabbi next door confirmed too: Not this single person Adam or Eva, but… (made of earth). So, we shouldn’t cling on the sin of a single person - but the sin of mankind as such of the time after they had been created. Our very personal readiness to sin at any time. Now Darwinism - man originating of ape, doesn’t at all contradict with the history of creation, for as Pope JP2 said: “God wrote two books - one of creation and one of science” But still -we do not “evolute” as successor of apes, but are God’s very own separate creation on mankind, with now the absolute new: IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD and with God’s breath - the soul, enabling us to actually communicate with God in prayer and eucharist - and the free will - which no primate ever had, nor any other big b rain like the dolphins. All these creatures- including humanoids, had nothing to do with human beings. They had no language, but noise-signals only. Human we where not before God gave us His likeness, odem (breath) and soul. I myself dare to think that this was not before 12ooo years ago. (Let it be 15ooo). We know as science discovered, that language is not older than roughly 12ooo-15000 years. So, we (I dare not to believe in one single man called Adam and Eva but say “we”) then where given our soul, and not before we had a sol, we where human as we look now - in the likeness of God.
There is not even the slightest likeness of God in what science calls “human” in those humanoid bones and sculls they declare “human”, which I think is not only silly, but dangerous too, for our kids are taught rubbish, far away from God’s creation. The big-bang theory is nothing but rubbish! For nothing plus nothing can not bang or explode nor implode. And bioinorganic chemistry is dead and can’t create harmonic and beautiful life. It would grow into chaos as cancer does.

Eve’s Apple? Well, apples as we learn, didn’t exist 12.ooo years ago, so; “the Apple” is symbol for first sin as such. Our continuously committed sins.

The big flood about Noah, was most likely between Euphrat and Tigris with it’s catipal Babylon about 2.500 years before Christ. Other floods happened elsewhere. That’s what the diggings there tell us - described in the book “and the Bible is right after all”. So, not only very long after Kain, but there where other kingdoms elsewhere too. So - not “the whole world” was destroyed, but this culture around the godly Noah’s family only. And of course he cold take only some of the livestock they needed to survive. - else the arch must have been much larger than our largest container-ship

We should see the Creation realistic, to avoid atheists taking fun of it. For the Creation is absolutely true, but must not taken literally. Atheists might think in logical relativism - related to what they know. Christians own a far wider range of thinking - in divine terms.
And another thing: Believers are NEVER alone! No matter in what terribly deserted situation hey might be,
Oh - poor atheists. But well, just you wait and see God’s truth. Did atheists ever ponder about WHAT IF IT’S TRUE AFTER ALL???

Yours
Bruno

 

[farpinho]

Another problem I see here is that kompaz is apparently interpreting Genesis in a vacuum.

Sure, if you read ONLY Genesis there are a lot of unanswered questions. But Catholics don’t do that. We have thousands of years of exegesis of the scriptures that we use to interpret Genesis, not too mention a lot of other books in the Bible. We don’t just read Genesis and say, “Hmmmm…a lot of holes in that story!”

Catholics look at Genesis through the light of the commentary of the Jewish Rabbis and the Church Fathers. Reading just the book, on its own, doesn’t give you nearly the full story.

 

[Aprendo]

Just my two cents passing through…though I find questionable some things “America” prints I thought this article was thought-provoking on this topic of original sin

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

On a more general notice.
Truth can’t contradict truth and I’ve found philosophy and science useful though it won’t be as sure as revelation. It is Church teaching reason can lead us to God. I’ve so far liked scientist/philosopher Michael Polanyi the best as a good meeting point philosophically for theist/atheist. Not even his close friends knew what he was but he had a sincere quest for truth it seems not wanting to be “claimed” by anyone I suppose.

Below is an article by him with explanation further down that gives an interesting perspective. He helped fight against “scientism” or science science as the only valid knowledge and not reducing life to “psychochemical laws”
Life’s Irreducible Structure
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA12-70Polanyi.html

I think Chesterton said something along the lines of “All roads lead to rome, which is why so few get there”=)

 

[grannymh]

Just my two cents passing through…though I find questionable some things “America” prints I thought this article was thought-provoking on this topic of original sin

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

On a more general notice.
Truth can’t contradict truth and I’ve found philosophy and science useful though it won’t be as sure as revelation. It is Church teaching reason can lead us to God. I’ve so far liked scientist/philosopher Michael Polanyi the best as a good meeting point philosophically for theist/atheist. Not even his close friends knew what he was but he had a sincere quest for truth it seems not wanting to be “claimed” by anyone I suppose.

Below is an article by him with explanation further down that gives an interesting perspective. He helped fight against “scientism” or science science as the only valid knowledge and not reducing life to “psychochemical laws”
Life’s Irreducible Structure
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA12-70Polanyi.html

I think Chesterton said something along the lines of “All roads lead to rome, which is why so few get there”=)

I will read the article later. Thank you.

I am looking for a fresh logical perspective on the sound bite “truth can’t contradict truth”.

 

[grannymh]

Just my two cents passing through…though I find questionable some things “America” prints I thought this article was thought-provoking on this topic of original sin

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

I definitely agree that this article is very, very thought-provoking because many Catholics are not aware of the movement to change fundamental Catholic Doctrines to fit personal preferences.

From the link.

“In one critical area, however, they remain stalled on the very brink of a crucial breakthrough: the explanation of evil and, with it, a satisfactory reformulation of the doctrine of original sin. No problem has proven more intractable in the past, but I am convinced that all the elements of the solution are now in hand.
The doctrine of original sin is the theory developed by Western Christianity, from Paul through Augustine and beyond, to cope with the problem of evil.”

and

“The juxtaposition of these firmly established scientific facts suggests a way to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in evolutionary terms. Original sin has been defined as* the need for salvation by Christ that is universal to all human beings and acquired through natural generation.* Descent of all humans from a single couple—monogenism—is not essential to the doctrine; the Catholic magisterium has continued to insist on it simply in order to explain why* all *humans need to be saved.”

The people who understand the Catholic Deposit of Faith and the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth, will recognize these two quotations as a big no-no.
Note: I do suggest reading the context because some readers could disagree with my observation.

Those familiar with evolution research in the 21st century understand that the problems with assumptions and estimates going millions of years backwards have continued in some form since the publication of “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science (22 December 1995) 270:1930-1936. Successors to Ayala are still dealing with probability. This is not the same as possibility.

I only skimmed the rest of the article so I may have missed some definite Catholic teachings such as Original Sin is a state, not a "need". Were there references to
the Council of Trent, Humani Generis, St. Thomas Aquinas De Malo, St. Paul’s letter to the Romans? These are key in Catholicism. Also, in Catholicism, there is a difference between a theory and God’s Divine Revelation.

 

[kompaz]

You have a unique view.

Not really: rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-gods-first-words-to-adam-was-lie.html

Adam knew what he was doing - and he knew it was wrong.

No, he did not. This is the whole problem.

The tree in question is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, Adam did not know the concept of wrong prior to eating the fruit. In fact, it explicitly says so in the text! In 3:22 you have “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Thus, you cannot claim that Adam knew that what he did was wrong, because he did not know the concept of wrong.

Adam was no fanciful ‘4-year-old’. A child of such an age can not commit a crime in the eyes of the law because he has not reached the age of reason.

Likewise, Adam has not reached the age of reason prior to eating that apple!

The parent that left the loaded gun with the child can be charged becaue it is the parent who knew this was wrong - even though he may not have known this negligent action would result in the death of his neighbor.

Precisely. Now: who was negligent by putting Adam next to that tree?

 

[fhansen]

Not really: rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-gods-first-words-to-adam-was-lie.html

No, he did not. This is the whole problem.

The tree in question is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, Adam did not know the concept of wrong prior to eating the fruit. In fact, it explicitly says so in the text! In 3:22 you have “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Thus, you cannot claim that Adam knew that what he did was wrong, because he did not know the concept of wrong.

It’d be kind of ridiculous for the narrative to blame Adam for breaking Gods’ command and at the same time admit he didn’t know he was doing wrong. Gods’ command is what makes something right or wrong-that’s the point! What Adam & Eve didn’t yet know is simply that God, due to His wisdom and goodness, is worthy of our trust, love and obedience; the world we have now, where the worst atrocities imaginable are committed, is what we get when Gods’ control over man is effectively out of the picture. The freedom to eat of the fruit only means that man was given a freedom so radical he could actually disobey God! Determining good and evil for himself—in this case by this initial act of disobeying God-is the so-called knowledge he now possesses; man takes on the role of God for himself-making his own laws/morality-something the rest of creation isn’t even capable of doing.

Precisely. Now: who was negligent by putting Adam next to that tree?

The tree signifies man’s free will- to do as he chooses -combined with his obligation-for his own moral integrity and for his own ultimate good- to obey God. Again, from the Catechism:
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

As I see it, the burden is on you to produce something to support you ‘truly unique view’ that Adam did not know he was breaking God’s command of not eating the fruit when he, in fact, did eat it.

Seriously, you have yet to produce any supporting evidence - and, the absence is quite noticeable… All you are doing is saying, “I’m right and you are wrong” - while everyone else that has responded has provided you with links to support their position.

Simply stated, Adam realized he had done wrong after he ate the fruit and he went and hid from God (as did Eve). The Adam blames Eve for leading him to the point of breaking God’s command. Eve responds by blaming the serpant. This entire scene just screams out, Adam knew what he was doing and got caught. Yet you claim he was an innocent

Not knowing all of the consequences of an action does not absolve one from the full weight of the law should the Judge impose sentence on the guilty person. So, please - why do YOU think Adam was innocent - and more to the point, why do you think that all of these other people got this major part of the story wrong?

God bless

Not really: rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-gods-first-words-to-adam-was-lie.html

No, he did not. This is the whole problem.

The tree in question is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, Adam did not know the concept of wrong prior to eating the fruit. In fact, it explicitly says so in the text! In 3:22 you have “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Thus, you cannot claim that Adam knew that what he did was wrong, because he did not know the concept of wrong.

Likewise, Adam has not reached the age of reason prior to eating that apple!

Precisely. Now: who was negligent by putting Adam next to that tree?

 

[BrunoMaria]

We meet here a general problem our Church fought like against windmills, ever since St. Peter and Paul. Many - even upright and convinced Christians, thought and still think in the line of relativism, - matching religious things with givens and backgrounds they know, experienced and even can “reconstruct” practically or in mind.

But there are of corse a lot of things, events and proceedings in the Old Covenant (as in the New) which deprive and withdraw from any comparable worldly reality. If that wouldn’t be so, belief as such would be redundant - as it would be obvious and normal and simply couldn’t be else. But belief is very much “else” - very different from anything the world knows.

We are given a lot of God’s revelation by God Himself; like how it came about that we actually are. Oh, the world hurried to provided a counter-program, proving the Bible all fairy tale. The program is called EVOLUTION. Even the most dumb person, who hardly cares for the Bible, knows EVOLUTION. This anti-CREATION doctrine is taught in all schools and ridicules God’s creation. A truly hellish doctrine, which makes kids (and daft people) think, that he who believes in Creation is a nut, for Evolution is right, the Bible (in general but here mainly the Old Testament) is wrong and just somet for old seniles. Even though science is still searching for the “missing link” which NEVER will be found, they found on evolution - the “randomly and accidentally” happened appearance of the human being (us) by the “natural” way - out of an ape. (Even the ape’s existence is anything but “natural”. This does not mean ther is no evolution. It is in the change of appearance etc - but evolution never created a single thing not even a single seed nor algae. Science simply wipes away all truly heavy and well founded counter-arguments versus the human being proceeded of evolution and it all by the terribly silly “big bang” that came out of nothing (Something’s got to be to bang - for nothing results of nothing). It’s God’s creation!

Yes, the bible contains a lot of metaphors and parables. But all of them are absolutely true in their very detail! Now, here comes in the disciple’s (and our) question in Mt 13,10: “Why does Jesus speak in parables?” (why is the Bible full of parables?).

Jesus answer provides us with a very deep insight, we really must ponder about, because it tells us something about our actual nearness to God - if it’s close or distanced. Jesus said: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’

So, lets beware of saying this and that in the Bible means such… NO, IT DOES NOT! It means what God said and meant, and not what people interpret into it. But it’s understanding is given to those only, who are His. And the keeper, preserver, guardian of God’s word is the Church Jesus founded. The Catholic Church - the one and only Church Jesus founded.

Yours
Bruno