Original Sin

[Marc_Anthony]

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.

Hmmm, grannymh, I may have misinterpreted you, in which case I apologize.

Nevertheless: I’ll tell you exactly what I believe about Genesis.

I believe that Adam and Eve were two literal people who were the first human beings in any meaningful sense of the word, mainly, because they were given a rational soul by God and granted a special status by beinh made in His image. I believe that they lived in a state of grace and unity with God until the devil tempted them into sin.

But I also believe in evolution, albeit theistic evolution.

Do you think that anything I believe is contrary to Catholic teaching?

I respect you very much, grannymh, so I apologize if my last post came across as condescending to you, as that wasn’t my intention at all, I promise.

 

[grannymh]

Hmmm, grannymh, I may have misinterpreted you, in which case I apologize.

Nevertheless: I’ll tell you exactly what I believe about Genesis.

I believe that Adam and Eve were two literal people who were the first human beings in any meaningful sense of the word, mainly, because they were given a rational soul by God and granted a special status by beinh made in His image. I believe that they lived in a state of grace and unity with God until the devil tempted them into sin.

But I also believe in evolution, albeit theistic evolution.

Do you think that anything I believe is contrary to Catholic teaching?

I respect you very much, grannymh, so I apologize if my last post came across as condescending to you, as that wasn’t my intention at all, I promise.

You were fine. Sometimes talking about Adam and Eve is difficult due to the mixture of science terminology and theology. Knowing this, I never take offense.

I loved your use of “special status” as a description for Adam and Eve. Special status works within the evolution theory and also when one considers that Jesus Christ offered His life for our salvation. Furthermore, starting with Catholic doctrines about Adam and Eve is the best way to come to grips with interpretations of natural science research. Some of the doctrines are in post 153. My suggestion is to study CCC 355 - 421. Warning! This is not a page turner.

Natural science is a gift from God. When natural science research is involved with rocks, weather, plants, insects, and the thousands of different animals, birds, and fish, all of which belong in the material domain, all kinds of evolution theories can be explored. Please note that the evolution model is used in medical research for the benefit of humanity. As long as God is credited as the almighty Creator, (theistic evolution) normally there is not a problem for Catholics.

Problems do occur when some interpreters of science research deny individual Catholic doctrines such as human origin and human nature. Catholicism insists that Adam and Eve remain as real founders of the human species. This is the point where science and religion dramatically intersects

This will be continued later. Please offer your comments on this beginning.

 

[belorg]

Hi, Belorg,

Interesting… so, God offends Himself - after all He creates everything, eh?

No, God,if He exists is an a-moral being. He cannot be offended.

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.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, of course God is the author of sin and evil. He is the cretor of everything, isn’t He?

Methinks you do not apprehend, or misapprehend, the nature of God. He is good. All good. Whatever is not good is not of God - it is, rather, a lack of God. A void. Evil exists only through a rejection of, therefore a lack of, God. Yet, God allows evil so as to bring a better good from it.

 

[belorg]

Methinks you do not apprehend, or misapprehend, the nature of God. He is good. All good. Whatever is not good is not of God - it is, rather, a lack of God. A void. Evil exists only through a rejection of, therefore a lack of, God. Yet, God allows evil so as to bring a better good from it.

If I build a wall and leave out a brick, the result is a hole in the wall. In that case, am I or am I not the creator of the hole?

 

[po18guy]

If I build a wall and leave out a brick, the result is a hole in the wall. In that case, am I or am I not the creator of the hole?

If you build a defective wall, you are not perfect. Say you build a perfect wall, but someone else takes a brick out.

 

[grannymh]

I said God is the author of evil, which follows logically from the fact that God is the creator of everything. If you deny He’s the author of everything, you cannot account fro evil.

'.

I recognize that God created human nature at the beginning of human history.
I recognize that the first human Adam had a firm, ongoing relationship with God.
I recognize that the first human Adam shattered his relationship with God by committing what is commonly known as Original Sin.

What I do not recognize is that the Creator of human nature is the Creator of evil. This is why.

People correctly say that God is the ultimate or original Creator of every…thing. Things are things which exist in time and space. Things have a location. To be logical, then I must ask this question — What is the zip code location of evil?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Belorg,

I think Po18guy gave you an excellent answer

In keeping with this ‘missing brick’ analogy - here is a link where a writer named ‘Thomas’ takes at least 90% of the argument you have presented to support Atheism and the absence of Free Will. By reading further, you will see where this argument quickly falls apart! Here is the link: comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi020.asp

On another topic … since you claim I can not ‘prove’ you have Free Will - yet obviously chose to write “Catholic” with an upper-case “C” contrasted with how you originally wrote it - what can be proven about any reality that cannot be measured or quantified? For example, how do you prove ‘love’ exists? People telling you that it exists is obviously not sufficient, and one’s own feelings can hardly be taken as an objective standard.

Looking forward to hearding from you.

God bless

If I build a wall and leave out a brick, the result is a hole in the wall. In that case, am I or am I not the creator of the hole?

 

[belorg]

If you build a defective wall, you are not perfect. Say you build a perfect wall, but someone else takes a brick out.

The problem is: God is the creator of everything, so there is no ‘someone else’

 

[belorg]

I recognize that God created human nature at the beginning of human history.
I recognize that the first human Adam had a firm, ongoing relationship with God.
I recognize that the first human Adam shattered his relationship with God by committing what is commonly known as Original Sin.

What I do not recognize is that the Creator of human nature is the Creator of evil. This is why.

People correctly say that God is the ultimate or original Creator of every…thing. Things are things which exist in time and space. Things have a location. To be logical, then I must ask this question — What is the zip code location of evil?

Don’t try this on me, grannymh. God is not considered merely the creator of every thing, He is considered the creator of everything, meaning all that exists… In Dutch, God is not said to be merely the creator of ‘alle dingen’ (every thing) but from ‘alles’ (everything).

And if the first human shattered his realtion with God, then that was due to this first human’s nature, which was, as you yourself admit, created by God.

 

[belorg]

Hi, Belorg,

I think Po18guy gave you an excellent answer

He gave me an irrelevant answer, actually.

I

n keeping with this ‘missing brick’ analogy - here is a link where a writer named ‘Thomas’ takes at least 90% of the argument you have presented to support Atheism and the absence of Free Will. By reading further, you will see where this argument quickly falls apart! Here is the link: comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi020.asp

What does ‘hearding’ mean?

 

[grannymh]

Don’t try this on me, grannymh. God is not considered merely the creator of every thing, He is considered the creator of everything, meaning all that exists… In Dutch, God is not said to be merely the creator of ‘alle dingen’ (every thing) but from ‘alles’ (everything).

And if the first human shattered his realtion with God, then that was due to this first human’s nature, which was, as you yourself admit, created by God.

What exists needs a location. The term “thing” can cover all kinds of reality. I chose an interesting aspect. You may freely choose another interesting aspect.

Evil is a description of an action. What shattered Adam’s relationhship with God was the result of Adam’s action of choice. This could be circular in the sense that results of choice can be described as an action. If you do not wish to deal with this, that is your choice. Choice is a gift from God.

Obviously, in order to understand a gift from God, one needs to understand that there is* both* a material world and spiritual world. One could rephrase that as both a natural world and a super-natural world. Believe it or not, but an atheist can accept the concept of something other than the natural environment. But that is topic for another thread.

To return to human nature as what is seen in the first human. The nature of Adam has one foot in the material world and the other foot in the spiritual world. One can choose to look at Adam as a whole person or one can look only at a part of Adam. That is your choice.

God does not change if someone does not believe in a spiritual world. Human nature does not change if someone only looks at part of a person. People can blame whomever or whatever for evil, but that does not change the need for goodness.

There. I have said what I have chosen to say. As far as our discussion, you may have the last word.

 

[fhansen]

No it isn’t. To equate moral evil with sin is to beg the question.

I’m not sure how it begs the question; sin is often defined as moral evil. Sin involves the concept that 1) an absolute human morality exists, and 2) humans don’t always comply with it.

 

[grannymh]

Nevertheless: I’ll tell you exactly what I believe about Genesis.

I believe that Adam and Eve were two literal people who were the first human beings in any meaningful sense of the word, mainly, because they were given a rational soul by God and granted a special status by beinh made in His image. I believe that they lived in a state of grace and unity with God until the devil tempted them into sin.

But I also believe in evolution, albeit theistic evolution.

From my off line position as an editor/writer and thus a researcher, I am seeing that theistic evolution currently is split between the historical Adam and the symbolic Adam. This link is an example of what can happen to the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.
biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans Scroll down to these topics or click topics.

How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?

“Original sin often refers simply to the current state of humanity, in that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Evolution does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does, however, raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them. These questions are theological, and over the centuries the church has considered many possible answers. Some of these options are consistent with the scientific evidence currently available.”

Were Adam and Eve historical figures?

“Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.”

This link explains the BioLogos Foundation. biologos.org/about

Here you can read: “The BioLogos Website has become a trusted source of excellent and accessible resources on contemporary issues at the science/faith interface.”

Please note that what is being presented on the BioLogos website has been presented over and over on various venues, including statements by Catholics. As obvious on CAF, there are some, not all, Catholics who prefer the symbolic message approach to the first three chapters of Genesis.

In defense of the Catholic Deposit of Faith, it is essential to look at the meaning of what is being said on Biologos.

For example this line from the first quote. “These questions are theological, and over the centuries the church has considered many possible answers. Some of these options are consistent with the scientific evidence currently available.”

The question which needs to be asked – Which “church” is still considering many possible answers? See footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, sections on Original Sin and human origin*.*

 

[belorg]

I’m not sure how it begs the question; sin is often defined as moral evil. Sin involves the concept that 1) an absolute human morality exists, and 2) humans don’t always comply with it.

It begs the question because ‘sin’ is generally understood in a religious way. If an absolute human morality exists, then I do not know of any non-religious person who would call a violation of human absolute moral rules a ‘sin’.

 

[belorg]

What exists needs a location. The term “thing” can cover all kinds of reality. I chose an interesting aspect. You may freely choose another interesting aspect.

Evil is a description of an action. What shattered Adam’s relationhship with God was the result of Adam’s action of choice. This could be circular in the sense that results of choice can be described as an action. If you do not wish to deal with this, that is your choice. Choice is a gift from God.

Obviously, in order to understand a gift from God, one needs to understand that there is* both* a material world and spiritual world. One could rephrase that as both a natural world and a super-natural world. Believe it or not, but an atheist can accept the concept of something other than the natural environment. But that is topic for another thread.

To return to human nature as what is seen in the first human. The nature of Adam has one foot in the material world and the other foot in the spiritual world. One can choose to look at Adam as a whole person or one can look only at a part of Adam. That is your choice.

God does not change if someone does not believe in a spiritual world. Human nature does not change if someone only looks at part of a person. People can blame whomever or whatever for evil, but that does not change the need for goodness.

There. I have said what I have chosen to say. As far as our discussion, you may have the last word.

There is nothing in this reply that is even remotely relevant to my objections.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Belorg,

You know, I never really thought of things this way. And, you really started me thinking - ah, but first I must say, I don’t think you exist. And, I am quite confident that no form of proof presented can really be considered believable. There is so much fraud and deceit on the internet these days…

But, I’m a sport… present credible evidence that you exist… and we’ll just see how fast I reject it.

But, since you can not do this - maybe you can answer this: what do you hope to learn on CAF?

God bless

He gave me an irrelevant answer, actually.

I

I don’t see where Thomas takes 90% of my argument and I see a reply there that misses Thomas’ point by several miles.

Yes, I chose it, but did I freely choose it?

Only that which is provable by logic. And Free Will isn’t. provable by logic. There have been thousands of attempts.

Depending on the definition of ‘love’ it can or cannot be proven to exist. The problem with Free Will is that it cannot even be properly defined…

What does ‘hearding’ mean?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

It’s nice to know you exist …

Now for a question. One of the links you provided stated:
**
“Evolution does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does, however, raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them.”**

I see ‘sin’ as truly a spiritual matter - freely breaking the relationship one has with God. And, while the effects of sin (war, poverty, disease, addictions, etc) can be displayed on the human body - I do not think sin itself can in any way be examined in any type of scientific manner (hypothesis, data gathering, analysis, and conclusion).

What are your thoughts on this?

God bless

From my off line position as an editor/writer and thus a researcher, I am seeing that theistic evolution currently is split between the historical Adam and the symbolic Adam. This link is an example of what can happen to the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.
biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans Scroll down to these topics or click topics.

How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?

“Original sin often refers simply to the current state of humanity, in that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Evolution does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does, however, raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them. These questions are theological, and over the centuries the church has considered many possible answers. Some of these options are consistent with the scientific evidence currently available.”

Were Adam and Eve historical figures?

“Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.”

 

[fhansen]

It begs the question because ‘sin’ is generally understood in a religious way. If an absolute human morality exists, then I do not know of any non-religious person who would call a violation of human absolute moral rules a ‘sin’.

I agree they probably wouldn’t use it that way but it really doesn’t matter since the meaning is the same. And I think its beneficial to understand sin in that light in any case.

 

[po18guy]

The problem is: God is the creator of everything, so there is no ‘someone else’

Ah, but God is love. Love is not mandated, or it becomes fear, which is anti-love. Love is a choice. You love Atheism, otherwise you would be a Christian at times and a non-believer at others - if your life is random. God gave us the freedom that comes with love: The freedom to love Him. The freedom to reject Him. The freedom to take a brick out of the wall. Do you deny free will? Who, or what then, made you begin posting here at CAF? Are you controlled then by some external factor?

I have my faith, and you have yours. What you believe about life is your faith, whether it is part of a plan, or simply randomness. Yet, even randomness is part of a plan, otherwise it would be ordered at times and random at others. Studied for sufficient time, there is order in randomness. Two drums being played in different parts of the world will occasionally sound simultaneously. This, if allowed to continue, will repeat. It goes beyond possibility, and rests in probability. There is order, even in randomness.

So, you came here randomly? Yet, you did not randomly leave. If you become frustrated with the dialog here, it is equally as likely (under randomness) that you would remain here in anger than you would leave in anger - if you have no free will. We could then choose to make or keep you angry while you had no choice int he matter. But, you do have that choice, based upon your will.

If you were a random creature, you would likely as not leave here in the middle of a post. Would not your emotions also be random, and you might laugh at negative things and cry at the positive, at least part of the time?