This is a discusion forum, not a debate. Our purpose here is to learn, not to win. So, if you can, please ask valid questions, offer your opinions, or point out pertinate facts. If you want to “win”, this is not a place for you.
Very good question. I rely on a system of vetting. In other words, people and groups of people will put forth claims and ideas. These assertions will be given weight insofar as they stand tests of scrutiny. All unproven claims will be considered as “myths” until proven otherwise.
I emphatically agree! Great one, nablaise!
Isn’t it strange that sometimes within a “discussion”, there is “debate”. Weird how that works isn’t it? Do you have a question for me? I have been opining. Is there no room or opining here? I think you’ll find that there is room for opining. But never fear, I do pledge to refrain from personal attacks.
Juliana said this: Throughout her revelation Juliana submits herself to the authority of the Church: “I yield me to our mother Holy Church, as a simple child oweth.”
Please folks, this is not a debate about the authenticity of Genesis or a debate on the Churches teachings pertaining to Genesis. Julian did not dispute the Churches teachings as you say, however she did introduce what I would describe as revolutionary ideas, and I don’t mean that in a radical sense, regarding the fall and sin and they could be described as unusual given the time she was living in ie; the black death which was seen as retribution, the peasents revolt, disunity in the Church so on and so forth. I was looking for a philosophical discussion on her writings to develop greater insight myself. Anyone who wants to debate the authenticity of Genesis or Church teachings on Sin and redemption is on another subject.
The Catholic decides firstly to believe that the Church is to be believed in matters of faith and morals.
Have at!I haven’t read Juliana. Is it necessary to do so to answer your question?
Difficult to discuss her revelations and theological writings pertaining to the Incarnation, Adam and Christ, the fall and sin if your not familiar with her writings which is what I opened the thread to discuss.
It would take me forever to go into Julian here if you are not familiar with her but in relation to the thread, she wrote a book called ‘Showings’ which are based on apparations she received during a near death experience which puzzled her. She didn’t write of them until 15 years later. She goes into the concept that the fall was necessary in order to know the goodness of God which I think someone mentioned here. How when God’s son Adam fell Christ fell, (references to the meaning of the Incarnation) and that God does not blame us for sin. Neither did he blame Adam as sin was inevitable which is particularly significant in relation to the time period she lived in as Priests were preaching the Black Death was retribution from God. She speaks of Christ as ‘Mother’ because of his role in our lives which was quite revolutionary for the time and introduces us to God as ‘female’ metaphorically speaking. Julian speaks of how Adam is representitive of the entire human race, she does not dispute whether he was a real person. The point of intrest was me was we are taught Adam brought sin and death on the entire human race. Julian’s concept was we all in a sense did. If Adam had not fallen any one of us could and would have and is no more responsible for original sin than any one of us. We are all in a sense Adam and original sin is about the entire human race and not just one man. I was inviting opinions on these concepts bearing in mind the socio-political environment during the time she wrote. I would say though that this is my interpretation of what she was saying. Someone else may see something else in it.Thanks, minkymurph, now I have another mystic I have to read about. I just read the Catholic Encyclopedias’ article and your description here and my interest is truly piqued.Difficult to discuss her revelations and theological writings pertaining to the Incarnation, Adam and Christ, the fall and sin if your not familiar with her writings which is what I opened the thread to discuss.
Julian is a fascinating which is why I chose her to write about. As I said, her ideology in the time she wrote in is what interested me.
Obviously, there was no literal garden of eden or Adam and Eve. As to the lessons the writer was trying to impart, your guess is as good as mine. Gardens, trees and growing crops are among the commonest metaphors in the Bible. It simply isn’t debatable. The Adam and Eve story is blatantly fictional. It doesn’t matter what “the church” teaches in this regard. One COULD give “the church” an out by saying that when it opines about the origins of man, it is making a scientific statement. It is trying to say something factual about the cosmos, and therefore it is not a matter of “faith”. Therefore, one could argue that the church could be wrong about the garden of Eden and still correct in matters of “faith”.The Catholic decides firstly to believe that the Church is to be believed in matters of faith and morals.
Since the story of “original sin” originates from, and is for the benefit of, the People of God, which is the Church, why would you not believe that the Church has the “most correct” interpretation of the story?
(Do you even know what the Church’s interpretation of the story IS? Adam - Original Sin)
Where DO you think that the story came from? Why should ANY interpretation of it be believed? On what authority do you claim the authority to dis-authorize the author and authorize yourself as an authorized interpreter of a story not authored by you?
There’s some questions for you!
Are you of the mind that Adam was not actually CULPABLE for his sin (which I would NOT agree with), or just that he wasn’t overly “special” in his sinning, any more than any other person with his gifts would be at the time, but only happened to be the first to HAVE sinned (which I would agree with)?Difficult to discuss her revelations and theological writings pertaining to the Incarnation, Adam and Christ, the fall and sin if your not familiar with her writings which is what I opened the thread to discuss.
The point of intrest was me was we are taught Adam brought sin and death on the entire human race. Julian’s concept was we all in a sense did. If Adam had not fallen any one of us could and would have and is no more responsible for original sin than any one of us. We are all in a sense Adam and original sin is about the entire human race and not just one man.
There is an article in New Advent: Juliana of Norwich
This is probably more appropriately dealt with in another thread, which I won’t start but which you are more than welcomed to do.
Did you call her a “Fascinating WHICH”?
Yes perhaps I should proof read more thoroughly prior to posting.Did you call her a “Fascinating WHICH”?
Just making some fun on your probable typo! Thanks for the laugh.
In the time she lived she may well have been thought of as a witch by some but never be let it be said I have lost my sense of humour. When I began posting here I often wondered why people put LOL in posts as in my part of the world it stands for Loyalist Orange Lodge.:extrahappy: