Re: Why Suffering Before Adam sinned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankkirby
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frankkirby

Guest
As I understand it, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct. If it is correct, then it seems there was suffering and death for millions (perhaps billions) of years before the sin of Adam. Even though these creatures were not human, the ability of some of them to experience physical suffering must have been as intense as our own. Why would God have allowed such suffering before any sin had been committed?

Thanks,
frankkirby
 
I for one reject the theory of evolution. It was man’s choice to sin and God’s respects man’s decision to choose from right or wrong. God wouldn’t just allow it, the choice was Adam and Eve. God set his rules and consequences up fairly and man chose to sin and suffer.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I for one reject the theory of evolution. It was man’s choice to sin and God’s respects man’s decision to choose from right or wrong. God wouldn’t just allow it, the choice was Adam and Eve. God set his rules and consequences up fairly and man chose to sin and suffer.
Click to expand...
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” - Genesis 3:16

Doesn’t that imply there was already pain & suffering before the fall, since God actually INCREASED the sorrow, not GAVE it?
 
Robertsxxx said:
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” - Genesis 3:16

Doesn’t that imply there was already pain & suffering before the fall, since God actually INCREASED the sorrow, not GAVE it?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t imply that pain and suffering was there before the fall. I will agree that sorrow was increase because there was no sorrow. Consider this from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 16. And thy conceptions. Septuagint:“thy groaning.” The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived with out concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)— Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock) — Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diod. i. 2.) (Calmet)

Suffering had to start with Adam and Eve because they were the first humans
 
tobinatorstark said:
No it doesn’t imply that pain and suffering was there before the fall. I will agree that sorrow was increase because there was no sorrow. Consider this from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 16. And thy conceptions. Septuagint:“thy groaning.” The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived with out concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)— Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock) — Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diod. i. 2.) (Calmet)

Suffering had to start with Adam and Eve because they were the first humans
Click to expand...
I don’t get it :confused:

The basics of multiplication: multiply anything by 0 & you get 0. How could God multiply sorrow if there was non to begin with?
 
Robertsxxx said:
I don’t get it :confused:

The basics of multiplication: multiply anything by 0 & you get 0. How could God multiply sorrow if there was non to begin with?
Click to expand...
You challenging the Church or the scriptures??
 
A related question to the “multiplied sorrow” point: Adam and Eve were told they would surely die if they ate the fruit. How did they know what death was, if death had never occurred?

It seems possible that the awareness of suffering and death is part of humanity’s sinful condition. The suffering or death of animals might not be part of the Fall, i.e., existed before the Fall.
 
cpayne said:
A related question to the “multiplied sorrow” point: Adam and Eve were told they would surely die if they ate the fruit. How did they know what death was, if death had never occurred?

It seems possible that the awareness of suffering and death is part of humanity’s sinful condition. The suffering or death of animals might not be part of the Fall, i.e., existed before the Fall.
Click to expand...
How about it being allegorical?
 
As I understand it, Thomas Aquinas addressed this positing that natural creation before Adam and Eve were subject to the ordinary laws of nature: the birth, life, and death cycle. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal beings, but fell, thus bringing death to the human race. It’s why they would know what death was and what the pains of childbirth entailed.
 
Della said:
As I understand it, Thomas Aquinas addressed this positing that natural creation before Adam and Eve were subject to the ordinary laws of nature: the birth, life, and death cycle. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal beings, but fell, thus bringing death to the human race. It’s why they would know what death was and what the pains of childbirth entailed.
Click to expand...
He pulled that explanation out of where?
  • then that doesn’t really answer my question since the scripture did not say “I will give thy great sorrow and conception”; it said “I will **greatly multiply **thy sorrow and thy conception”
 
Namesake said:
How about it being allegorical?
Click to expand...
Please explain your purpose of how it could allegorical as opposed to literal? Take it for granted that there is some allegorical material in the Bible, but I am not seeing it here. I am seeing literal account. I do see allegory in the NT when Jesus told the parables. I just want to here your point of view
 
Robertsxxx said:
He pulled that explanation out of where?
  • then that doesn’t really answer my question since the scripture did not say “I will give thy great sorrow and conception”; it said “I will **greatly multiply **thy sorrow and thy conception”
Click to expand...
For that you’ll have to read Aquinas. And perhaps I am misstating his position. I’m not a Thomist by any stretch of the imagine–he’s too difficult for me. It’s something I read (I forget where) and cite it only so those with an interest might wish to pursue it. But, if I’ve got it right it makes sense and isn’t unreasonable, if unprovable. At least, it makes as much sense as some of the scientific theories about the origin of life on this planet I’ve heard of late–and we all know how long any one theory lasts in the scientific world. 🙂 Any speculations need more than theory to be proved, both religious and scientific. The difference is religion is proved in people’s life and science by observation of the natural world. I see no obvious conflict between them or those of good faith in both/either world.
 
Della said:
For that you’ll have to read Aquinas. And perhaps I am misstating his position. I’m not a Thomist by any stretch of the imagine–he’s too difficult for me. It’s something I read (I forget where) and cite it only so those with an interest might wish to pursue it. But, if I’ve got it right it makes sense and isn’t unreasonable, if unprovable. At least, it makes as much sense as some of the scientific theories about the origin of life on this planet I’ve heard of late–and we all know how long any one theory lasts in the scientific world. 🙂 Any speculations need more than theory to be proved, both religious and scientific. The difference is religion is proved in people’s life and science by observation of the natural world. I see no obvious conflict between them or those of good faith in both/either world.
Click to expand...
So… are you going to answer my question or not?
Any speculations need more than theory to be proved
Click to expand...
Um…
  1. Proved is not the correct term to use here, since it entails 100% certaintly, which is not how science works.
  2. A scientific theory is the highest ladder of knowldge in science; you’re using a different definition when you’re approaching a theory* overall & when you’re adressing science; you’re mixing up the average, everyday use of “theory”=hypothesis & lumping it together with “scientific theory”=a hypothesis that was actually backed up by facts.
But you’re talking off topic.
 
Robertsxxx said:
So… are you going to answer my question or not?
Click to expand...
Since I already tried, I guess not. 🙂
Um…
  1. Proved is not the correct term to use here, since it entails 100% certaintly, which is not how science works.
  2. A scientific theory is the highest ladder of knowldge in science; you’re using a different definition when you’re approaching a theory* overall & when you’re adressing science; you’re mixing up the average, everyday use of “theory”=hypothesis & lumping it together with “scientific theory”=a hypothesis that was actually backed up by facts.
Click to expand...
Okay. Whatever. I didn’t know we couldn’t express ourselves except in the most precise terms–in other words, that we needed to parse words ad infinitum. You know what I meant. That should suffice on a forum like this one. 🙂
But you’re talking off topic.
Click to expand...
I’ll leave that to the moderator to decide. Thank you, anyway. 🙂
 
Thank you for you replies. I hope you don’t mind if I ask the question more precisely. Since the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that the theory of evolution may be correct, lets assume for this discussion that it is correct. Given this assumption, it then seems to me that there must have been suffering and death for millions (perhaps billions) of years before God placed Adam and Eve in this world. Since there were no creatures with free will in this world before Adam and Eve it would seem there was no sin in this world until Adam and Eve arrived, yet there was suffering and death during this period. How does the Church explain this to be compatible with an infinitely good and all-powerful God? The Church must believe that it is compatible. If it were not, I would think, it would not allow evolution as a plausible theory, unless we just have to accept it on faith alone.

Thanks,
frankkirby
 
I’ve also struggled with this. I’ve even asked the same question.

I’ll have to find it for you… (I’ll post the link when I find it 🙂 )

EDIT: Okay, here

Here’s the BETTER one that deals with the SAME thing: here​
 
Robertsxxx said:
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” - Genesis 3:16
Click to expand...
That’s the price we pay for our large cranium, which evolved faster than the birth canal, as opposed to all other primates.
 
redhen said:
That’s the price we pay for our large cranium, which evolved faster than the birth canal, as opposed to all other primates.
Click to expand...
The scientific standpoint makes perfect sense. But we are not looking at from a scientific viewpoint now, but the problem of God allowing suffering even before the original sin & the Fall, as I understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top