M
- Status
M
minkymurph
Guest
I agree gardens, trees and growing crops are common metaphors in the Bible. Howvever, the trees, the crops, gardens actually existed, as they do today, and the stories had a deeper meaning. I have no dispute with you statement the Church may well have been wrong in believing it was a literal place however it never declared this belief infallibly. It has declared infallibly beliefs concerning sin and redemption. The issue the Church has is the special creation of the soul and that man was God’s special creation being created in his image. The Church is not really concerned whether individuals believe in the accuracy of the description of Eden as the Holy Spirit does not impart infallible historical or scientific knowledge centuries in advance of mankind’s scientific discoveries in an attempt to authenticate Bible truths. In mythology, the logistics of the myth, as in was there really someone called Androcles, and can you really pull a thorn from a lion’s paw was unimportant to both author and audience. The moral of the story was however important and the issue for Christianity is how we can to be separated from God and our return to him. Personally speaking, I would say the Eden was an artistic image of paradise in the sense of man dwelling in complete harmony with God, nature, and man and woman with each other but it is a personal opinion and I would not be dogmatic about it.
H
huckleberry
Guest
Point taken.
- You first question is filled with assumptions that I guess are strict Catholic dogma. I guess the answer is: I don’t think “the church” has necessarily the “most correct” interpretation because “the church” has a bias to interpret the bible as describing actual supernatural events. While the bible has many good teachings, I take a similar stance as Thomas Jefferson, and disregard the “divine” bits because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But of course you can answer all of these untidy concerns with one succinct and tidy word: faith.
- I don’t know where the story came from, but it is an interesting challenge to make guesses (if you are humble enough to admit you don’t know). The genesis story was most likely created to explain certain realities. How did we get here? If there is a benevolent god, then why don’t we live in paradise? In many ways, it is not a very special story. Creation myths abound in societies throughout history. And no one in their right mind believes they are literally true. I mean we can grant that they are all possible, but not probable.
- No interpretation of such extreme supernatural claims should be believed. It is a legitimate exercise to perhaps operate under the assumption that one or another interpretation is the correct one. But to be honest and humble, one must not claim to be 100% sure. One should only APPROACH certainty, never actually touch it. As the evidence mounts for a particular claim, then we can get nearer to certainty.
- You have constructed a clever sentence, but I can’t quite make sense of it. One does not need “authority” to talk about a myth. It is obvious to everyone that Adam and Eve are fictional characters. You need only pick up the bible and read it. It is a fascinating and arguably beautiful creation myth. To state otherwise is to diminish a work of art with childish credulity.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Whoa! Go raibh maith agat for the laugh and why LOL might look a WEE bit “odd” to you!Yes perhaps I should proof read more thoroughly prior to posting.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:
Of course, my “thanks” is from the south, and not the northern version, which I’m not sure what is correct at this moment, though I think it’s a shorter phrase.
Though I have seen some of the “Colin and Cumberland” bits on BBC-NI, and some TG4 and RTE shows. Oh yeah, and Blas.
Anyway, is mise Caoimhin.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
This brings up the whole (bogus) issue of “multiple realities”, which attempts to avoid coming to a conclusion by proposing that things could have happened other than they did.
I don’t think that Adam was any more, or less, culpable for his (“the orginal”) sin than anyone else who would be in his EXACT SITUATION, which simply means: Assuming Adam-2 is perfectly equivalent to Adam-1, then Adam-2 would do precisely the same as Adam-1, which is simply stating an obvious equivalency, and not adding ANY new info to the situation.
To propose that Adam-2 would not do as Adam-1 did, while holding to the Adam-1 = Adam-2 equivalency, is just GOOFY!
Now, I do believe that Adam WAS perfectly free to either have sinned (at least once) or to not have (ever) sinned, because to say otherwise is to destroy the very concept of free will, which we can’t do under punishment of the sin of “axiom-slaying”, but Adam DID what he did, which collapses the possibilities leaving us with knowing that:
- Free will wasn’t and can’t be destroyed (axiomaticaly known)
- Mankind needs to deal with Adam’s misuse of free will (experientially known)
Or more likely hiding our sorry backsides waiting for someone to stone us.
So what is the real question you’re asking? Are you looking for some consolation that you’d be a “good Christian” even without the advantages we have due to our knowledge of history?
I think Juliana was seeing that the “God is REALLY mad at us and we deserve our punishment” attitude as a little incongruous with what the Church had revealed to her, and rather overplayed by the “authorities” of the Church.
She (apparently) didn’t overreach in the other direction and declare that “God forgives everything and we’re all assured of heaven”, but her “function” (to torture a term) was to inject a little common sense into the “body politic” to counter the PANIC that threatened any hope of stability in society at the time.
In those days, due to the ubiquity of the Church as the major “informer” of society, such an “injection” would have a potent anti-panic producing effect.
These days, when the Church has very little “informing” effect of society, Juliana’s “injection of sense” most probably wouldn’t have very much effect, and we’d descend into abject chaotic panic.
E
edwest2
Guest
Why did you come to this Catholic Forum? To deny established Church teaching? To deny the Church itself? What is your point?
The Church holds as true that a real, physical Jesus Christ died for the sin committed by our first parents. You can say you don’t believe that but that’s what Catholics believe and that is what the Church holds as actual history, not the symbolic symbolism you are trying to peddle.
Peace,
Ed
B
BlaineTog
Guest
I think it’s entirely possible that the myth is both literal and allegorical; in fact, I think that’s likely.
To be fair, the genre of Genesis is “creation myth,” whereas the genre of the Gospels is “eyewitness account.” To that extent, Genesis wouldn’t be a lie even if none of it actually happened as written, because the genre implies that you should take its ability to portray historical occurances with a grain of salt. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t portray a thread of historical truth (God could certainly have created all humanity from one pair of humans who subsequently Fell), though.So according to you, God just took a bunch of old myths and lied to us, in order to get His point across? I guess Adam & Eve was a myth too. As a matter of fact, maybe the whole needing a savior thing is a myth too. Maybe there was no Jesus.
Um, s/he didn’t say anything about “gods.”
To an extent, it doesn’t much matter. Every miracle in the Bible could have a completelly natural explanation, and this wouldn’t really change the faith… except for the Resurrection. The Resurrection had to actually happen. Otherwise, Christianity is totally wrong.
H
huckleberry
Guest
Thank you. Of course the extraordinary claims made in the bible are not literally true. Though I do understand the plight of the supernaturalist bible thumping literalists. Because if they admit one bit is allegorical or mythological, then they slip down the slope of admitting that the whole thing is fictional. And it transparently is all fictional. We are living in a world wherein people think there are gods and angels and heavens and hells. Doctor Seuss couldn’t have done better.
M
minkymurph
Guest
You must be joking! I have absolutely no doubt I would have ate of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ metaphorical or otherwise. I am quite sure I would have been hiding my sorry *** waiting to be stoned, I am quite sure like Peter I would have professed I had never known Christ and if I had have had the choice of burning incense to the Emperor or being eaten by lions I would have carried insence to the temple by the bucketload as I’m really a bit of a coward! Where I draw comfort from Julian’s writings is the suggestion that I am no different to anyone else. I have heard many people say, ‘how could Adam possibly have sinned against God’ being in Paradise and all that. I’ve heard it said that Adam was responsible for all our misery and if only he hadn’t sinned we would have been living such a blissful existence. I heard a joke once about a Christian who said ‘if only I’d been alive in time of Christ, they would never have crucifed him!’ I believe the old saying ‘don’t judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes’ is a very true one. It’s all very well to look back and say we would never have done something, but would we? Peter thought the same. He was still however loved so much by Christ. That is my comfort from Julian’s writings, and that God takes everything, our nature, our experience of life and so one, into account and loves us in spite of it.
H
huckleberry
Guest
Good question. I was reared Catholic. And now I am fascinated by the “magical thinking” that goes on in the religious mindset. And if you will notice, I have got some people to admit that, while they call themselves Catholic, they do not necessarily believe everything that “the church” says. I don’t care what religion one belongs to. What I care about is convincing people that they should be humble enough to realize that they do not have the ultimate answers. But more than that, I believe that my humble and objective perspective can be helpful to those who are locked into a calcified and myopic world-view.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Amen to that!
The “multiple realities” folks love to conjecture themselves into being “Practically Perfect in Every Way” (to quote Mary Poppins) in SOME reality, and avoid being who they really are.
She was a good “cure” for her times, and is a good cure for ours as well, then, isn’t she?
It’s surprising how much our times are similar to her times, actually, isn’t it?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Huck!? When are you going to do as you say you do and answer my questions, so that we can move toward some understanding of each other?
Anyone you “convinced” that the Church tells untruth in the area of faith and morals are not actually Catholics, by definition.
To not understand why The Church has the full deposit of faith which is ALL TRUTH within faith and morals is not to “admit that they don’t have the ultimate answers”.
You “calcified and myopic” worldview that there is no ground on which truth rests, and that the anxiety that you feel in holding all belief as “provisional”, which you consider the “price of being human”, is what we are trying to show you we don’t have.
We are uncomfortable in our certainty, while you are comfortable in your anxiety.
We don’t possess your “existential angst”. You won’t believe that, but it’s simply the truth.
We DO possess discomfort with how to “fit” our known truths into “real life”, but we are not anxious that our truths aren’t actually true.
We don’t ask that you accept this to be true. We only ask you to accept that this is the rock on which we walk, just as we accept that your’s is the sand upon which you walk.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, I thought that when I read into first century christianity. I was led to believe that there was all these really faithful christians who had a few failings the sacrifice of Christ made up for and they all believed the same thing in relation to Christ. How not true! Lots of bickering sects who couldn’t agree despite the fact they all claimed to confess Christ which started wars. How like today.Amen to that!
It’s surprising how much our times are similar to her times, actually, isn’t it?
B
BlaineTog
Guest
So unlikely as to be laughable. As Lewis points out, the Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts. If they are fictional, then their writers invented the genre of the realistic Fantasy novel two thousand years early, with virtually nothing else between then and now to compare. Not to mention the fact that they were writing about a personality who has nowhere else been captured with any real degree of success.
So you think it is an “ultimate answer” that these things do not exist?
But you would need an “ultimate answer” to know that no one knows any “ultimate answers.” I agree with your point from an epistemological standpoint (we can’t know infallibly that what we believe is infallibly true), but not a metaphysical/ontological one. We believe what we believe because we think it is true, and we may well be right, just as we may well be wrong.
And yet, since you seem to be making much more than a merely epistemological standpoint, your perspective is no less “calcified and myopic.”
In order to function, you need a set of beliefs. Humans are imperfect, so they’ll often make mistakes, but it’s entirely possible that we can get some things right as well. If your beliefs are too stiff, then they lack the ability to perfect themselves, but if they are too flexible, they first don’t help you live contently (for you’ll never be able to be content with any given action, despite that you must constantly take actions) and second won’t be able to hold onto the truth when you do find it.
E
edwest2
Guest
If you look at the various philosophies established by men, there’s a lot to choose from. But the Bible tells us Catholics: “The road to destruction is wide.”
I’ve read other religious books and philosophy books. But the current bout of “who can say?” and “Who knows?” is just a repeat of times past. There is nothing new under the sun regarding this.
I watched an interview with Ayn Rand. And she was asked, “Aren’t I my brother’s keeper?”
To call something calcified is to suggest great wisdom ceases to be great just because it is old. And what is “modern”?
Did wisdom or knowledge or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th Century to the 21st?
A truth remains though time passes. God is truth. The new wave of atheism and atheistic rationalism says “explore”! But would you go to reinvent the wheel when you have been told how to make it? Or is it that only novelty excites you, while the old truths are simply boring? The “new” worldview is simply one of the “old” worldviews dressed up in different clothes, with different hairstyles and different slang.
If you call it “magical thinking,” that’s up to you but God is real and will not be mocked.
God bless,
Ed
A
AndyF
Guest
minkymurph:
Eve was a different species than the tempter, and we are reminded that this was the technicality by Devine decree that exempted the other angels from being stigmatized by original sin. Therefore by default of the same standard she is innocent.
The irony is that the cases should have been judged on the bases of the capability to tempt other beings, which we would expect would automatically render a tabula rasa decision that would disallow the admittance in the case of physical attributes by nature. The overlying revelation by this result of the sin of satan was that aware beings “can” tempt other beings, regardless of species barriers.
[Actually, if we are to believe Thomas, we have a case here where sin occured at the genus level, not species, and that also applies to Eve. But we need to remind ourselves the species factor is prominent and pertinent which acquits them both.]
AndyF
Given all the factors of the complete case, and based on the rules provided to us, I find it puzzling Adam and Eve were found guilty.
Eve was a different species than the tempter, and we are reminded that this was the technicality by Devine decree that exempted the other angels from being stigmatized by original sin. Therefore by default of the same standard she is innocent.
The irony is that the cases should have been judged on the bases of the capability to tempt other beings, which we would expect would automatically render a tabula rasa decision that would disallow the admittance in the case of physical attributes by nature. The overlying revelation by this result of the sin of satan was that aware beings “can” tempt other beings, regardless of species barriers.
[Actually, if we are to believe Thomas, we have a case here where sin occured at the genus level, not species, and that also applies to Eve. But we need to remind ourselves the species factor is prominent and pertinent which acquits them both.]
AndyF
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Eve wasn’t infected with sin as a snake’s venom, but committed her very own sin. I don’t see how the difference in species matters here at all.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
The angels had nothing whatsoever to do with original sin, which applies ONLY to humans. The angels version of “original sin” was initiated by satan, as the first offender of the “angelic species”, with the result being those who “kicked in” with satan being “demonized” eternally, and specifically ETERNALLY because of the nature of angels being incapable of repentence (all decisions are irrevocable and eternal for their species).
There is no excuse for sin, much less an excuse due to an unequal power relationship between the temptor and temptee, as the choice is always utterly simple by it’s nature due to it’s being simply the obedience of a single simple command: Don’t!
Having no valid excuse, though very good reason, to sin, Adam is indeed guilty of sin (on the face of it) and fully culpable due to his knowing what “don’t” means, while having very (humanly) sensibly reasons for “wanting to improve himself”.
This merely illustrates how having “reasons” does not expiate (dis-culpabilize?) “disobedience”.
Finding this “excuse” (reasoned reason) as eliminating the culpability of choosing sin is the same “reasoning” which invariably invalidates revelation AS revelation, in it’s opinion.
There is NO mitigating factor to disobedience of an understood direct command from a proper authority.
HOW one is tempted is irrelevant to the sin of not performing a direct command from a proper authority.
This shouldn’t be particularly surprising, as God “tempted” Adam and Eve to “be good and obey”, which is even MORE of a trans-species temptation than the angel(satan)-human “barrier”.
They get no acquital, as is proved by their resultant situation thrust upon them.
To restate: A power differential between temptor and temptee supplies NO MITIGATION to the culpability of the temptee for disobedience to a proper authoritative direct and understood command.
(Lawyers! Sheesh!)
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
In fact, they both AS A UNIT (mankind) performed the SAME sin (not two of the the same KIND of sin but the self-same instance of sin of it’s type).
They performed ONE SIN, whose effect was not “valid” UNTIL both of them “as one flesh” had performed it.
It would be an interesting piece of theology to explain how THAT makes sense!
F
fhansen
Guest
I don’t mean this as an attack but many of us would see your attitude as the arrogant one we ourselves once had prior to humbling ourselves before God and the revelation we believe He’s given. So it appears to us that your crusade to rid the world of the ignorance that religion supposedly contributes comes from the very human-centered righteousness we consider to be a problem rather than from any superior take on the truth.
Some of us were cradle Catholics who came to our faith the hard way-by looking for it on our own…post-childhood catechesis. You seem to easily dismiss faith with your assumption that it’s all based on myth but the concept of “God”, and with it the supernatural and all that it implies, is not an unreasonable concept-just unprovable. But *not *unbelievable if and when this God who may or may not exist decides to show that He does exist to anyone willing to take more than a half-hearted look-see, in which case He reveals Himself, sometimes in ways unimaginable to the uninitiated.
I don’t know all the reasons why He chooses to do things that way-to stay hidden and require us to walk by faith rather than sight- other than that by this act of our faith we definitively reverse, within ourselves, the rejection of Gods’ authority, a real act of rebellion which took place and was demonstrated (whether literally or by allegory), in the story of creation and the fall and which was effectively the first and ultimate act of unbelief. For me this turning back to God and away from the world should mean that Christians are true nonconformists, even as we know that many will think we’re foolish ones.
Faith is possible only because God exists. But faith exists in us by degree, which means it can be stronger or weaker due to our human limitations and depending on the effort and cooperation we’ve put into it by humbling ourselves to its possibility.
- Status