What if "the Fall" is allegory?

[porthos11]

Wow. I really feel like my question has not been addressed at all. And as a side tangent - all those people telling me NOT to listen to scientist… WOW. I’m seriously speechless. This kind of thinking is what pushes me AWAY from the faith. If you think that you’re helping by asking someone to ignore science then let me set the record straight right now, right here. YOU ARE NOT HELPING ME. You are making me think that asking tough questions is not encouraged, that the faith will never actually stand up to such scrutiny, that I must blind myself to facts in order to remain Catholic. It makes me wonder if you’re an atheist pretending to be Catholic to make Catholics look bad by saying things like that. (The sad thing is that there were several such comments so I’m not speaking to one specific person here, just in general.)

Why would you let anonymous characters on the Internet drive you from something as important and defining as your faith?

This may be a Catholic forum, but it’s still an Internet forum. You still get idiots of all stripes, myself included. You need to learn how to to use your blinders instead of whining about leaving your faith over Internet responses, which, ultimately, you have to sift through to get meaningful answers.

Now back to my original question. Hypothetically, IF the Fall did not literally happen, more specifically, if sin wasn’t literally introduced into the world via one person (Adam), how does that effect the theology surrounding Christ’s death? Someone mentioned that it is obvious that we need a savior just by looking around, in newspapers and such. I get that point of view, and it’s at least an actual attempt to answer my question, but what I want to know is what about Christ’s death? Why was his DEATH necessary to save us if - hypothetically - there was no Fall? How does Substitutionary Atonement fit into the picture? What would be some logical explanation for the necessity of his death if Original Sin isn’t exactly as we understand it today? I was just curious if anyone had any good thoughts on this…

It’s really simple. If the Fall didn’t happen, hypothetically, then there is no Original Sin. Therefore, what happened on Calvary was nothing more than a simple Roman execution with absolutely no meaning or value whatsoever. The whole Christian faith would be a sham, and we would have nothing to hope for. In short: No Fall==No Redemption.

Unfortunately, whoever said to you to look into the newspapers as proof of the Fall is simply using the logical fallacy of begging the question, so naturally, it’s irritating for one such as yourself seeking a logical answer.

 

[grannymh]

It has never been outright condemned, but it doesn’t seem extremely certain either.

OTOH, here is a starting point which makes it seem that there is a way in which polygenism could be reconciled with the Faith. ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM

This piece by Roberto Masi is often cited as a prime example of the various proposals for dissent of basic Catholic doctrines regarding the Fall.

In contrast, there is this sentence in the 1950 Encyclical Humani Generis.
Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

The people, who wish to alter Divine Revelation so that it comports with modernism, will point out the words “in no way apparent” while conveniently ignoring the definitive statement that condemns the polygenism proposal according to both Scripture and the major Ecumenical Church Councils (revealed truth and authority of the Church).

According to Divine Revelation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit during Ecumenical Church Councils sounds like an outright condemnation of the current polygenism substitute for God’s creative powers.

I often use the word population along with polygenism to alert people that it is time to catch up with 21st century science which employs the cladistics system. The scientific clash is simply a population (which is polygenism) of hundreds versus a population of two when it comes to our origin.

 

[Gorgias]

I often use the word population along with polygenism to alert people that it is time to catch up with 21st century science which employs the cladistics system. The scientific clash is simply a population (which is polygenism) of hundreds versus a population of two when it comes to our origin.

It’s only polygenism if science is able to assert that the ‘population’ was of ensouled human beings. It cannot do so. Therefore, the scientific theories in play do not affect the theological doctrines in question.

 

[grannymh]

It’s only polygenism if science is able to assert that the ‘population’ was of ensouled human beings. It cannot do so. Therefore, the scientific theories in play do not affect the theological doctrines in question.

The current scientific cladistics system is applied to all living organisms. Assuming that life occurred in some manner, there would be separate cladistics diagrams for plants and animals including humans. Catholics, of course, would offer that life is the creation of God and that humans are a peerless species.

Every point on a cladistics diagram is by definition a breeding population. In general, polygenesis is the derivation of a species or type from more than one ancestor or germ cell. (Information source. American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) Because polygenesis refers to more than one ancestor, there would have to be a population of ancestors for each species. Natural science then posits that the human species on the cladistics diagram came into being as a large population (not a population of two) deriving from the Homo/Pan divergence.

In English this means that our origin is a breeding population at the end of the hominin line drawn by paleoanthropologists and biologists specializing in genetics. Our “large breeding population” because of polygenism directly contradicts the Catholic theological doctrines regarding the Fall aka Original Sin.

Naturally, readers of the BioLogos website understand that there are other kinds of “theological” theories about our origin. When it comes to basic doctrines on the Fall, Catholics cannot pick any “theological” proposal which fits their preferences. Catholics need to stand up for their Deposit of Faith.

 

[grannymh]

Now back to my original question. Hypothetically, IF the Fall did not literally happen, more specifically, if sin wasn’t literally introduced into the world via one person (Adam), how does that effect the theology surrounding Christ’s death? Someone mentioned that it is obvious that we need a savior just by looking around, in newspapers and such. I get that point of view, and it’s at least an actual attempt to answer my question, but what I want to know is what about Christ’s death? Why was his DEATH necessary to save us if - hypothetically - there was no Fall? How does Substitutionary Atonement fit into the picture? What would be some logical explanation for the necessity of his death if Original Sin isn’t exactly as we understand it today? I was just curious if anyone had any good thoughts on this…

Regarding this sentence from post 19.
“Why was his DEATH necessary to save us if - hypothetically - there was no Fall?”

In answer to the question about death with the qualification that there was a Fall.

In my childhood neighborhood, the death of Jesus was explained in the primary grades. Humans died – what is so difficult about that concept? Adam is human. In Adam is all humanity “as one body of one man.” (Information source. the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404) After Adam disobeyed his Creator, God did not abandon mankind. (Information source. CCC 410)

Those people who actively listen during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will occasionally hear these words in the Eucharistic Prayer IV.
You formed man in Your own image and entrusted the whole world to his care, so that in serving You alone, the Creator, he might have dominion over all creatures. And when through disobedience he had lost Your friendship, You did not abandon him to the domain of death. For You came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find You.

It should be obvious that the way anyone could overcome the domain of death is for that person, on his own power, to come alive after dying. Perhaps people need to read the rest of the story.

 

[Waverideryogi]

Of course the Fall is allegorical. That being said there will be many who disagree. Consider this, the Bible is full of allegories. Jesus, himself, often taught in parables telling us basically that that those who have ears to hear will hear. The fall of man comes when man gains the knowledge of “good and evil.” The word knowledge implies the Fall was something that occurred in Consciousness as knowledge is something that is structured in our consciousness, not something necessarily physical. Good and evil are symbolic of the concept of the Universe of time and space which consist of polarities - good and evil, cold and hot, up and down, love & hate, etc. Before the knowledge of good and evil ( the polarities ) dawned Man lived in state of unity with God. There is no way to describe this state through language because it is beyond the polarities of which the field of speech and language are comprised. As such the only way to convey any sort of concept of it and the Fall is through allegory. Christ came to help man return to the primal state of the “I AM” which is beyond all polarities (good and evil) and the state of Man before the Fall. This is the salvation of which Jesus speaks. Man is born in sin because the Universe of “good and evil” is an impurity by its nature and cannot exist without the field of polarities ( good and evil ) To be born into it and stay here requires the Soul to take on some amount of impurity. That is the inheritance Man has from Adam, the primal Man. The answer to the question did Jesus have to die for our salvation is difficult to answer objectively because we don’t have any direct teachings from Jesus. The original documents and books of the New Testament were written a generation or two after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection which means they were probably written by disciples of the Disciples and the manuscripts that were used by Emperor Constantine’s council were not originals but copies of copies of copies, etc. The oldest manuscript of the Disciples is the Gospel of Mark and in it there does not seem to be any discussion of his resurrection. It ends with them going to his tomb and finding that he had risen and gone on to Galilee . The resurrection part of the story as I understand it, only appears a century or so later in other versions of the manuscript.

 

[Gorgias]

The fall of man comes when man gains the knowledge of “good and evil.”

It’s not so much “knowledge of ‘good and evil’” as it is “‘knowledge of good and evil’”. The distinction I’m trying to make is that Adam and Eve didn’t gain ‘knowledge’, per se – they didn’t immediately become distinguished moral theologians. Rather, they appropriated for themselves, in defiance of God, the role of one who makes decisions about what is good and what is evil. That is, they desire to become ‘like gods unto themselves’.

The answer to the question did Jesus have to die for our salvation is difficult to answer objectively because we don’t have any direct teachings from Jesus.

Hmm… so, although he was God, Jesus didn’t have the ability to preserve His teachings from error?

The original documents and books of the New Testament were written a generation or two after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection

You’re forgetting about the Epistles. You’re also forgetting that they weren’t composed “a generation or two after Jesus’ resurrection”, and therefore, they had been being told by all Christians during those times.

 

[ericc]

If there was no Fall then why would Jesus - the Son of God - have to die for us? What would be the point of a “Savior”?

Thoughts?

If there is no Fall, then Adam and Eve would still be living happily because they will not suffer death. Not sure whether they will have kids if they didn’t eat from that tree of knowledge. There will be no need for a Saviour. But you still have the Trinity though. And you still have those pesky devils/demons/fallen angels.

If God grant A/E kids perhaps through divine creation rather than biological means, those kids may still experience the Fall as all have free will and those pesky devils are around to deceive /tempt. Eventually some may fall and need to be saved. But the saviour might be superdad Adam?

 

[grannymh]

If there is no Fall, then Adam and Eve would still be living happily because they will not suffer death. Not sure whether they will have kids if they didn’t eat from that tree of knowledge. There will be no need for a Saviour. But you still have the Trinity though. And you still have those pesky devils/demons/fallen angels.

If God grant A/E kids perhaps through divine creation rather than biological means, those kids may still experience the Fall as all have free will and those pesky devils are around to deceive /tempt. Eventually some may fall and need to be saved. But the saviour might be superdad Adam?

I believe you have missed the goal of human life which is the Beatific Vision.

In addition, there are a few Catholic teachings and a few Scripture verses which could be consulted. Maybe, if you have some free moments, you might enjoy paragraphs 355-421 and paragraphs 1730-1732 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Links to Catholic teachings

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Jim_Baur]

The Fall, to share an opinion, is telling us of the inner man. It is literally telling us of the inner person or man or self.

If we think it is telling us of the outer person, then one might think it is figurative.

Please note, I am giving a personal opinion.

Blessed Advent.

 

[grannymh]

The Fall, to share an opinion, is telling us of the inner man. It is literally telling us of the inner person or man or self.

If we think it is telling us of the outer person, then one might think it is figurative.

Please note, I am giving a personal opinion.

Blessed Advent.

Personal opinions brighten the day.

Here is an unpopular opinion.
The “Fall” refers to Original Sin, in which the first human person said to his Creator, go fly a kite.

 

[Jim_Baur]

grannymh

Some of us are still saying that.

I have my days, don’t ya know.

 

[grannymh]

May all of you have a Merry Christmas
as we celebrate the joy of Christ’s birth.



Lorenzo Lotto, 1523

http://www31.ureach.com/images/blank.gif