As I recall, you were talking about the physical death of dinosaurs or was it some other kinds of animals who died naturally or by disasters??
Actually, it doesn’t make any difference if Fundamentalists join the Catholic Church, the Catholic Deposit of Faith does not change from within.
Welcome to the Forums and to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail! I saw that you used to listen to rap.
You’re the one saying Jesus is the one who atoned for Adam’s sin. So if Jesus’s atoning death is a reversal of Adam’s sin then we should also expect the effects of Jesus’s death to reverse the effects of Adam’s sin.
No, you were going to tell me why the talking snake isn’t historic but Adam & Eve are remember? Last time I checked I wasn’t the one who believes Genesis is actual history.
How do you know that life in the Garden wasn’t mean to last forever with Adam & Eve eating from the Tree of Life. At least you seem to agree that Adam & Eve weren’t naturally immortal now.
Excellent, so you’ll agree that neither is monogensm in its realm, it being a scientific question like the aforementioned.
And where does the Catechism get it’s content from? Church council statements, encyclicals etc.- and these in turn stem from Biblical interpretation or theological speculation.
And this is why the Church didn’t get monogenism correct since it did not stem from divine revelation but rather certain interpretations of the Bible and theological speculation.
Both human and animal death existed before the Fall
As I think about the reference to “the fruit from the wrong tree”, are you using this in a fundamentalist way? The Catholic teaching is that Adam preferred himself over God and thus he freely disobeyed God. This broke the friendship with God. Adam, the creature scorned his Creator.
Are you thinking about Adam as the one who seriously disobeyed God? There had to be just one Adam as father of *all *humanity because the one Jesus Chirst died for all humanity. The truth stays the truth because it exists independently from people’s wishes.
This is why it is important to look at the whole picture of Catholic teaching. It is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which reversed one of the effects of Original Sin.
Interesting. Let’s move away from a fundamentalist outlook regarding snakes. The Catholic teaching is that Original Sin took place at the beginning of human history. Adam and Eve are real people so they would be historical. When it comes to a real sin, it is a real Satan who does the tempting. Maybe you have a better idea of what Satan looked liked. Did he look like a lion? Does it make a difference what Satan looked like?
I can understand why it is difficult to understand Adam and Eve being naturally immortal before Original Sin but not after Original Sin. Not accepting the Catholic teaching regarding a real Adam who could enter eternal life without dying–but instead chose to scorn God and as a consequence death entered human history – is an easy way to make light of the seriousness of Adam’s free decision.
Dang! I thought there was an understanding that human nature per se is an unique union of both the material *and *spiritual worlds. Not understanding human nature could be a reason why the Catholic teachings regarding the first three chapters of Genesis are being discarded by those who want to change Catholic doctrines to suit themselves.
It is your free choice to believe only what you wish to believe. However, an indiviudal’s personally chosen beliefs do not change Catholic doctrine.
What’s up here? - I said they were true, even thought the actual accounts are fiction.
My apology. I did not mean to startle you.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation refers to God Himself Who is the Creator. The earth is a material place which has been created. The almighty Pure Spirit Creator is not on the same level as our material/physical earth. The Holy Eucharist and the mountains cannot be compared equally. God is not limited by human’s idea of consistency. Jesus is God.
Umm… “apples and oranges”?
)The basic doctrine is the Real Presence of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. The Eucharist is the usual name. The term Transubstantiation describes the Eucharist and as such is also a doctrine.Umm… “apples and oranges”?
The OT and the Gospels were put together in completely different ways. The OT proceeds from an oral tradition that lasted for generations before it was written down; it describes events in pre-history and utilizes a number of tropes that are common to many peoples. The OT consists of a great number of literary genres.
The Gospels, however, proceeded from the lived experience of Jesus and of the birth of the Church. It began to be put down in writing around the end of the lifetimes of those who personally experienced Christ on this earth. The Gospels largely take on one literary type: narrative (and it’s more or less historically conditioned). They were written from the perspective of the faith – and were meant to bring people to the belief that Christians held in those first days of the Church.
So, it’s not inconsistent to utilize the OT and the Gospels in different ways – in fact, it would be hugely inconsistent to approach them in the exact same way!
(btw… the doctrine wouldn’t be ‘transubstantiation’, would it, but rather, ‘the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist’, right?
Well firstly you’re assuming he can be argued with - if you follow the creationism/ID vs evolution threads, you’ll soon find out that some people simply refuse to cede anything regardless of the amount of evidence you throw at them.
So here also we have Our Lord Rubbishing the concept of ‘Original Sin’.
The main problem is that many people do not realize that “original sin” is not the same as personal sin. Original sin happened once and that was all that was needed to break man’s original friendship with God. Personal sin happens often.
No.
I think you’ll find that the context is that the pharisees and scribes were misapplying the OT text in questioning whose sin caused the man to be blind.
I am still convinced that it is an error to look for a spiritual message in the WORDS of the Old Testament.I think you’ll find that the context is that the pharisees and scribes were misapplying the OT text in questioning whose sin caused the man to be blind.
There is certainly precedent for God punishing children, just look at Canaan after Ham looked at Noah naked (Gen. 9: 25).
There are also personal sins which could be punished - perhaps with blindness (no not that one!)
They may well be asking because they had just been reading Job’s comforters… (you must have sinned Job, why else would there be earthquakes, tornadoes and death as well as your own physical discomfort)
The real answer was given by Jesus when he said neither, the real reason was to display the glory of God, and he cured him.