Where did original sin come from if Adam and Eve were not real people?

[Gaber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannymh
However, the fact that the peerless human species exists uniquely among the creatures of God’s creation is reason to believe that there is a peerless, unique single couple who founded humanity just as God divinely revealed.

Agreed.

Even assuming that the first part is so, the Univers havinbg been surveyed and found lacking in other life forms, how does that follow???

 

[Gaber]

Adam and Eve are metaphoric. Original Sin is also metaphoric, and even more so the A and E, if degrees of metaphoricity are possible.

Original Sin is a metaphor for the human condition.

Surely a person who believes that Adam and Eve were metaphors, would also believe that Original Sin is also a metaphor.

And that sin itself is a metaphor for separation from God. And that ‘separation’ is itself a metaphor. Perhaps God is also a metaphor.

Wow. Nice dancing! Yes. It is so. We just, I guess, can’t say on here how it got that way, though they are inextricably the same, God or not.

 

[grannymh]

Even assuming that the first part is so, the Univers havinbg been surveyed and found lacking in other life forms, how does that follow???

There are already many life forms on earth from the amoeba to peerless humanity. Thus, it does follow that a life form so unique [humans] because it is called to share in the life of its Creator would certainly come from two sole founders.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

**There are already many life forms on earth from the amoeba to peerless humanity. Thus, it does follow that a life form so unique [humans] because it is called to share in the life of its Creator would certainly come from two sole founders. **

Or two soul founders!

 

[grannymh]

granny

There are already many life forms on earth from the amoeba to peerless humanity. Thus, it does follow that a life form so unique [humans] because it is called to share in the life of its Creator would certainly come from two sole founders.

Or two soul founders!

Two soul founders is perfect – it makes my day.

 

[Gaber]

There are already many life forms on earth from the amoeba to peerless humanity. Thus, it does follow that a life form so unique [humans] because it is called to share in the life of its Creator would certainly come from two sole founders.

It might appear so, as a device for telling a story relative to an event in a paradigm we are not allowed to discuss, but under any circumstance it does not necessarily follow that there were only two. A metaphor may be wrapped around a dynamic without accurately naming the specifics, and only picturing the change for ease of mnemonic portabilityl. It can then be told as a myth everyone can listen to, as a parable, eg, while those privy to its actual meaning can guide inquisitive minds as to its unfolding when interest is ripe.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

We seem to be ignoring the part of the devil in all this. We don’t know how long he’s been around, but the Genesis account indicates he deliberately tempted Man (to get away from a literal Adam and Eve for the moment).

Just how he tempted Man is not clear. I doubt very much if there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but I think it symbolises what Man wanted to reach for.

And this “original sin” is **repeated every time **the devil succeeds in tempting a person. When we deliberately break the commandments, we do the same thing our ancestors did - we once again choose our way against that of God.

And with the passing of the years and generations, this constant renewing of the original sin has a cumulative effect. Cain murdered his brother - we now have wars that kill millions.

As far as I’m concerned the Genesis account is shrouded in mystery. Even if it’s largely symbolic, it still illustrates in a narrative fashion the struggle humanity has with its consistent rejection of God.

It’s literally right in one respect though - the devil certainly exists. And he constantly tempts.

 

[Gaber]

We seem to be ignoring the part of the devil in all this…

Not at all, but yes. The “devil” or “the adversary” is very real–metaphorically. And the referent of that metaphor does, indeeed, rule the world as we personally see it. We have, in our tradition, simply mistaken the remedy by institutionalizing and metaphorizing it while claiming its historical referents as proof that the metaphor itslef is history. Big mistake. That way the “enemy” wins, and we all think we are merrily earning our way to heaven. More tragically, we assume from our metaphore that “heaven” is for after death. Well, that too, is a mtaphor.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Not at all, but yes. The “devil” or “the adversary” is very real–metaphorically. And the referent of that metaphor does, indeeed, rule the world as we personally see it. We have, in our tradition, simply mistaken the remedy by institutionalizing and metaphorizing it while claiming its historical referents as proof that the metaphor itslef is history. Big mistake. That way the “enemy” wins, and we all think we are merrily earning our way to heaven. More tragically, we assume from our metaphore that “heaven” is for after death. Well, that too, is a mtaphor.

The “devil” or the “adversary” is real - full stop. There is nothing metaphorical about him. If there’s a metaphor in Genesis regarding the devil, it might be the reference to the Serpent.

But then a snake has a certain forbidding presence about it, and no doubt the writer used the term for a reason - sinuous, very good at hiding itself, deadly, hypnotic, and strikes like lightning.

 

[grannymh]

We seem to be ignoring the part of the devil in all this. We don’t know how long he’s been around, but the Genesis account indicates he deliberately tempted Man (to get away from a literal Adam and Eve for the moment).

Just how he tempted Man is not clear. I doubt very much if there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but I think it symbolises what Man wanted to reach for.

And this “original sin” is **repeated every time **the devil succeeds in tempting a person. When we deliberately break the commandments, we do the same thing our ancestors did - we once again choose our way against that of God.

And with the passing of the years and generations, this constant renewing of the original sin has a cumulative effect. Cain murdered his brother - we now have wars that kill millions.

As far as I’m concerned the Genesis account is shrouded in mystery. Even if it’s largely symbolic, it still illustrates in a narrative fashion the struggle humanity has with its consistent rejection of God.

It’s literally right in one respect though - the devil certainly exists. And he constantly tempts.

Very brief comment. Sorry about that.

The Original Sin is not repeated. Subsequent sinning by us is considered a personal sin. To understand the context, it is best to start reading paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This section is not a page-turner so be prepared to spend a lot of time with the truths of Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

It might appear so, as a device for telling a story relative to an event in a paradigm we are not allowed to discuss, but under any circumstance it does not necessarily follow that there were only two. A metaphor may be wrapped around a dynamic without accurately naming the specifics, and only picturing the change for ease of mnemonic portabilityl. It can then be told as a myth everyone can listen to, as a parable, eg, while those privy to its actual meaning can guide inquisitive minds as to its unfolding when interest is ripe.

When I approach the analogical and figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis, I use the teachings of the Catholic Church as my guide to understanding the Divine Revelation in these chapters.

 

[Gaber]

The “devil” or the “adversary” is real - full stop.

We agree on this. You are simply arguing about my views of what that is.

There is nothing metaphorical about him. If there’s a metaphor in Genesis regarding the devil, it might be the reference to the Serpent.
But then a snake has a certain forbidding presence about it, and no doubt the writer used the term for a reason - sinuous, very good at hiding itself, deadly, hypnotic, and strikes like lightning.

Yes, thank you, exactly what I mean. If you have taken even a high scholl course in literature you are certainly familiar with the idea of personalization. That device is a wonderful teaching tool in the dramatization of the inner conflicts a person might have, and the whole range of considerations which humans necessarlly fall into because of the nature of the awareness that both seperates us from “animals,” and which we need to get beyond in order to see the illusiona we are preptrating on ourselves by thnking that way. Once we know, we can proceed as usual, but with our feet planted on something more solid than unredeemed folklore. I mean it is all there, just we are not encouraged to go beyond the superficial presentation, as is the usual intent of parables and myths having to do with transformation. Go figure.

Does that diminish Divinity, or make the story “wrong?” No, of course not. It simply puts it in its rightful place as a tool for realizng greater things when you reach a point of ripeness wherefrom you can inquire more deeply. Remember Mark 4:33,34.

 

[davidv]

We agree on this. You are simply arguing about my views of what that is. Yes, thank you, exactly what I mean. If you have taken even a high scholl course in literature you are certainly familiar with the idea of personalization. That device is a wonderful teaching tool in the dramatization of the inner conflicts a person might have, and the whole range of considerations which humans necessarlly fall into because of the nature of the awareness that both seperates us from “animals,” and which we need to get beyond in order to see the illusiona we are preptrating on ourselves by thnking that way. Once we know, we can proceed as usual, but with our feet planted on something more solid than unredeemed folklore. I mean it is all there, just we are not encouraged to go beyond the superficial presentation, as is the usual intent of parables and myths having to do with transformation. Go figure.

Does that diminish Divinity, or make the story “wrong?” No, of course not. It simply puts it in its rightful place as a tool for realizng greater things when you reach a point of ripeness wherefrom you can inquire more deeply. Remember Mark 4:33,34.

Divinity’s rightful place is at the top of everything. There is no greater being, or thing, and this includes “point of ripeness wherefrom you can inquire more deeply”.

 

[Gaber]

Divinity’s rightful place is at the top of everything. There is no greater being, or thing, and this includes “point of ripeness wherefrom you can inquire more deeply”.

God is ALL, so I’m not sure how “place” aplies to that, save in relative acknowledgement when you give yourself existance as something seperate from God. That is why the sibject/object phase of mind can be called the “adversary.” And yes, given the firsrt, ripeness is included. Thanks for your comment.