F
fhansen
Guest
What I said is that, if there is no God, then the concept of evil is fallacious, all righteous indignation /moral outrage would be based on our own relativisticly derived morality.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
F
fhansen
Guest
Why would he abuse his free will?
G
grannymh
Guest
Think positive!!!
What is it that distinguishes Adam from all other created material/physical creatures?
G
grannymh
Guest
God being the creator of sin, evil, injustice, high gas prices, and baldness ???
Pardon me, but that sounds like wishful thinking.
B
belorg
Guest
No, that’s not what you said. You said
And even if you meant to say that the concept of evil is fallacious is there is no God, that simply isn’t true. A derived morality is not necessarily relativistic.The concept of sin would of course be fallacious.
B
belorg
Guest
Wishful thinking would be to think He is only the creator of rigjhtfulness, justice, cheap gas and lots of hair.God being the creator of sin, evil, injustice, high gas prices, and baldness ???
Pardon me, but that sounds like wishful thinking.
F
fnr
Guest
To loosely quote an unknown theologian whom I heard the Anglican bishop and scholar N.T. Wright quote:
“The point isn’t whether the snake talked, it’s what it said!”
The Bible is pretty much the only book where people take a single line or single page from it and bandy it about as if all truth is contained there. How many people “get” Romeo and Juliet by reciting the line “Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”
The first part Genesis is written (or rather composed from what’s likely preexisting text or oral tradition) in a particular sequence of stories meant to convey a particular message:
-Creation (illustrating God building a home for himself and his beloved creation)
-Eve and Adam (illustrating human pride at a “quick fix” approach to being able to judge good and evil for itself)
-Cain and Abel (illustrating pride and agrarian/pastoral tension in the ancient world)
-**Noah and the Flood **(illustrating God wiping out all the bad parts of humanity and pledging a new covenant in spite of human “evil”)
-The Tower of Babel (illustrating the ills of human overreaching and pride)
-The Call of Abram (who takes the name Abraham, and with whom God promises his covenant)
The sequence sets up a series of problems (namely, the problem of evil) to which the later chapters of Genesis propose answers. It’s these problems, which the Adam and Eve story convey as being inherent to “fallen” human nature. The Noah story begins with God seeing the “wickedness” of humanity:
*"When the LORD saw how great the wickedness of human beings was on earth, and how every desire that their heart conceived was always nothing but evil, the LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
But Noah found favor with the Lord."*
So in a sense, Noah and his family, whom Genesis figuratively illustrates, like Eve and Adam, as universal forebears of a “cleansed” humanity whom God found pleasing. God establishes his covenant with Noah:
"Indeed for your own lifeblood I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from a human being, each one for the blood of another, I will demand an accounting for human life… For in the image of God have human beings been made."
According to Genesis, the world after Noah is bubbling along just fine (this isn’t told in historical order – since it’s a metaphor, but is a metaphorical narrative). At some point, humanity decides to build the Tower of Babel (which may be based on the main ziggurat of Babylon, “the house which rises high its head,” with which the authors would have been familiar as Exile-era Jews). God decides to “confuse their language” to check their pride. This is a metaphor about human pride in overreaching for self-aggrandizement, and probably reflects knowledge in the ancient world of many promises made by early rulers whose efforts came to naught.
So up to this point, Genesis has told the story of human pride and the loss of paradise, the divine “cleanup” of the world and its restoration through Noah and his covenant, and the renewed pride in the Tower of Babel.
Immediately after that, after a genealogical walk through “time,” Noah’s descendents bear Abram, with whom God establishes the covenant (circumcision and all) under which the Jews lived.
It’s easy to argue all sorts of logical yet absurd concepts based on literal readings of Genesis. But that’s really not the point of Genesis!
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I think it’s worth repeating what I said from earlier as a reminder.To loosely quote an unknown theologian whom I heard the Anglican bishop and scholar N.T. Wright quote:
“The point isn’t whether the snake talked, it’s what it said!”
The Bible is pretty much the only book where people take a single line or single page from it and bandy it about as if all truth is contained there. How many people “get” Romeo and Juliet by reciting the line “Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”
The first part Genesis is written (or rather composed from what’s likely preexisting text or oral tradition) in a particular sequence of stories meant to convey a particular message:
-Creation (illustrating God building a home for himself and his beloved creation)
-Eve and Adam (illustrating human pride at a “quick fix” approach to being able to judge good and evil for itself)
-Cain and Abel (illustrating pride and agrarian/pastoral tension in the ancient world)
-**Noah and the Flood **(illustrating God wiping out all the bad parts of humanity and pledging a new covenant in spite of human “evil”)
-The Tower of Babel (illustrating the ills of human overreaching and pride)
-The Call of Abram (who takes the name Abraham, and with whom God promises his covenant)
The sequence sets up a series of problems (namely, the problem of evil) to which the later chapters of Genesis propose answers. It’s these problems, which the Adam and Eve story convey as being inherent to “fallen” human nature. The Noah story begins with God seeing the “wickedness” of humanity:
*"When the LORD saw how great the wickedness of human beings was on earth, and how every desire that their heart conceived was always nothing but evil, the LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
But Noah found favor with the Lord."*
So in a sense, Noah and his family, whom Genesis figuratively illustrates, like Eve and Adam, as universal forebears of a “cleansed” humanity whom God found pleasing. God establishes his covenant with Noah:
"Indeed for your own lifeblood I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from a human being, each one for the blood of another, I will demand an accounting for human life… For in the image of God have human beings been made."
According to Genesis, the world after Noah is bubbling along just fine (this isn’t told in historical order – since it’s a metaphor, but is a metaphorical narrative). At some point, humanity decides to build the Tower of Babel (which may be based on the main ziggurat of Babylon, “the house which rises high its head,” with which the authors would have been familiar as Exile-era Jews). God decides to “confuse their language” to check their pride. This is a metaphor about human pride in overreaching for self-aggrandizement, and probably reflects knowledge in the ancient world of many promises made by early rulers whose efforts came to naught.
So up to this point, Genesis has told the story of human pride and the loss of paradise, the divine “cleanup” of the world and its restoration through Noah and his covenant, and the renewed pride in the Tower of Babel.
Immediately after that, after a genealogical walk through “time,” Noah’s descendents bear Abram, with whom God establishes the covenant (circumcision and all) under which the Jews lived.
It’s easy to argue all sorts of logical yet absurd concepts based on literal readings of Genesis. But that’s really not the point of Genesis!
In fact, I’ll add a bit more:
F
fnr
Guest
Vatican II certainly didn’t! However, it did try to get past the mindset of many Catholics that the means by which we relate to Christ is through conformity to every teaching of the church. It explicitly sought to recognize that God reveals himself in Christ, a real person with whom we can and should have a relationship. We shouldn’t be saying that to be a Catholic we must be unattended by doubt over particular doctrinal statements.
It’s in taking tradition and internalizing it and thinking about it prayerfully that we really meet with Christ, who knows us as a friend. That’s a whole different faculty of mind than that required to meet a checklist of doctrinal correctness. That’s how we make our real and honest selves open to the Lord. It’s in that respect that I applaud the forthright questioning that started this thread! Our friend is writing and telling us that he doubts he can stay in the church. To me, we need to let him know that catholicity isn’t conformity, but unity in diversity!
G
grannymh
Guest
Yup.
There is a lot more to God.
G
grannymh
Guest
Can you give me that Eve and Adam message in Catholic Doctrine?To loosely quote an unknown theologian whom I heard the Anglican bishop and scholar N.T. Wright quote:
“The point isn’t whether the snake talked, it’s what it said!”
The Bible is pretty much the only book where people take a single line or single page from it and bandy it about as if all truth is contained there. How many people “get” Romeo and Juliet by reciting the line “Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”
The first part Genesis is written (or rather composed from what’s likely preexisting text or oral tradition) in a particular sequence of stories meant to convey a particular message:
-Eve and Adam (illustrating human pride at a “quick fix” approach to being able to judge good and evil for itself)
Otherwise, I will file it along with other silliness.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, the concept of sin would be fallacious only if the concept of moral evil is fallacious, and, if it is, then righteous indignation/moral outrage would never be justifiable or reasonable. But I’m curious to know how you think a non-relativistic morality based outside of a God who established it is supportable.
F
fnr
Guest
CCC
390 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.264 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.265
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.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I’m sorry grannymh, and I have a feeling that I have a good idea what your response would be, but if I had to believe in a literal creationism, where the events depicted in Genesis happened exactly as they are portrayed, then I would cease to be a Catholic and become a Protestant.
But, I do not think that. So I am a Catholic.
I do believe in a real Adam and Eve, and a primeval sin leading to a fall from grace. But I am not a creationist.
But, I do not think that. So I am a Catholic.
I do believe in a real Adam and Eve, and a primeval sin leading to a fall from grace. But I am not a creationist.
B
belorg
Guest
Yes, he is, as I said, also the creator of evil, sin, and baldness.
B
belorg
Guest
No it isn’t. To equate moral evil with sin is to beg the question.
I said it is not **necessarily **relativistic. If you think it is, you have the burden of proof.
F
fnr
Guest
Well, there are plenty of non-relativistic ethical systems. Consequentialism is one type, deontology another, and there is a whole field of philosophical inquiry into ethics that rarely advocates relativism.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Belorg,
Interesting… so, God offends Himself - after all He creates everything, eh?
Not to be picky - but, Catholicism is a proper noun and gets a capital “C” - just like Atheism is a proper noun. It is important to not only get it right, but to show respect.
It looks like you have a major omission here - and that would be man’s Free Will. There are those who doubt the existence of Free Will … but, look at it this way, you have a choice to spell Catholicism correctly and a choice to continue in error. Your choice, because you have Free Will. Admittedly, a minor demonstration - but, this is the same power that Adam had - the choice to follow God’s Law or to follow one’s own will.
Sin may be difficult to identify because it is an offense against God. Evil, however, is obvious world-wide. Chances are there were a half-dozen evil events that made yesterday’s newspaper. Chances are there will a half-dozen different evil events reported in tomorrow’s newspaper. Never doubt evil - it is real and it is out there…and in there, too. But, never doubt God’s Goodness - He is much stronger then all of the evils put together.
God bless
Interesting… so, God offends Himself - after all He creates everything, eh?
Not to be picky - but, Catholicism is a proper noun and gets a capital “C” - just like Atheism is a proper noun. It is important to not only get it right, but to show respect.
It looks like you have a major omission here - and that would be man’s Free Will. There are those who doubt the existence of Free Will … but, look at it this way, you have a choice to spell Catholicism correctly and a choice to continue in error. Your choice, because you have Free Will. Admittedly, a minor demonstration - but, this is the same power that Adam had - the choice to follow God’s Law or to follow one’s own will.
Sin may be difficult to identify because it is an offense against God. Evil, however, is obvious world-wide. Chances are there were a half-dozen evil events that made yesterday’s newspaper. Chances are there will a half-dozen different evil events reported in tomorrow’s newspaper. Never doubt evil - it is real and it is out there…and in there, too. But, never doubt God’s Goodness - He is much stronger then all of the evils put together.
God bless
G
grannymh
Guest
Pardon me. I have lost track of what has been happening on this thread. What possible “response” from granny are you referring to?
I am not a creationist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design. I am a curious Catholic.
As far as I can tell, the only verse in the six day creation account which is a Catholic doctrine is Genesis 1: 1. This is the beginning of the Nicene Creed.
I have been thinking about addressing the second paragraph in the OP which begins:
“My first problem is scientific.” The OP mentions Cardinal Pell.
I have addressed the news article about Cardinal Pell here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9591088&postcount=455
The thread starts here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664084
However, the Catholic answer to claims made by interpreters of natural science is more on the philosophical or nature of the scientific process so maybe that type of discussion belongs here.
If I am off track of what you were thinking when you penned this post, please straighten me out.
- Status