Where did original sin come from if

[Ideo]

Omyo, if you do not believe that God could inspire an accurate writing of the past, then why do you believe in any of it? If all the writers are simply interpreting God’s word in their own way, then it becomes so twisted and convoluted that you don’t know what is God and what is man. There becomes absolutely no reason to take the bible as anything more than you take Greek mythology or the teachings of Buddhism. Both of those contain wonderful stories and moral lessons, but we do not worship the people who wrote them. However, when you worship what you consider to be God, who is revealed to you through the teachings of a man who lived thousands upon thousands of years ago, are you not simply worshiping that person’s idea of God? You have no way of knowing which things in the holy book are real commands or just suggestions by a man of the time (stoning a raped virgin comes to mind).

Japhy, thank you for posting, although I find that to be superfluous to the extreme. That which cannot be said plainly should not be said at all. However, after sifting through the flowery language, I find it still to be inadequate. First off, the Church is the establishment that decided on its own infallibility, so I do not feel obliged to automatically agree with it. Second, the wording seems to suggest that they are covering their own behind in V - VIII. Third, there seems to be some contradiction when you compare the aforementioned edicts to III. The literal historical sense may not be called into question, but you don’t have to interpret it literally? This is mincing words, and does not clearly state, without contradiction, what the Church believes is true and what they believe to be myth. Literally, Genesis certainly does not hold with what scientists have found. However, when you start interpreting it symbolically, you get into a very sticky situation where you don’t know what is symbol and what is truth, and then there becomes no reason, as I said, to take the Bible any more seriously than one takes any other ancient book of myths. All of them contain morals, stories, a grain of truth… why just this one?

There is a quote that I think sums it up very well:
“A mythology is someone else’s religion, different enough from your own for its absurdity to be obvious.”

 

[japhy]

Japhy, thank you for posting, although I find that to be superfluous to the extreme. That which cannot be said plainly should not be said at all. However, after sifting through the flowery language, I find it still to be inadequate.

The Church’s language tends to be a bit more embellished and (although this is true of the past more of the present) painstakingly precise. What is asked is asked as specifically as possible, and the answer is given without addressing what was not asked.

Permit me to give you the reader’s digest version:

I. Are so-called “scientific” models of Scriptural interpretation that discount the literal historical value of Genesis 1-3 well-founded? No.

II. Do Genesis 1-3 contain, instead of accounts of actual events, simply mythological fables purified to be monotheistic, or tales without any historical basis meant to convey religious or philosophical truths, or pseudo-historical stories meant to instruct the reader? No on all counts.

III. Concerning foundational beliefs of the Christian religion (examples follow), may the literal sense of Genesis 1-3 be called into doubt? God’s creation of all things at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the creation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of all humans; the first man and woman living in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; God’s command to man to test his obedience; man’s disobedience at the instigation of the Devil under the form of serpent; the “fall” of man and woman from that initial state; and the promise of a future redeemer? No all on counts.

Let me interject your commentary:

the wording seems to suggest that they are covering their own behind in V - VIII. … there seems to be some contradiction when you compare the aforementioned edicts to III. The literal historical sense may not be called into question, but you don’t have to interpret it literally?

Perhaps you didn’t read them carefully enough (due to their verbosity). Question III deals with “foundations of the Christian religion” and names nine specific examples. Questions V through VIII deal with other, more general, matters:

V. Are all the words and phrases in Genesis 1-3 necessarily to be understood in a strict literal sense, as opposed to a metaphorical or anthropomorphical sense? No.

VI. May certain parts of Genesis 1-3, in addition to their literal and historical sense, be interpreted allegorically and prophetically? Yes.

VII. Are Genesis 1-3 meant to convey a scientifically exact account of the events they record? No.

VIII. In Genesis 1, can the word yom (“day”) be taken either literally or figuratively, and is this open to discussion among interpreters? Yes.

From this, you should be able to deduce, for example, that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible does not necessarily read Genesis 1 as covering seven 24-hour days, and that we are not to expect or demand modern scientific accuracy in the accounts. On the other hand, the response affirms that certain things described as happening in Genesis 1-3 really did happen: man was a special creation of God, and the first woman was somehow (not necessarily from a rib) formed from the first man, and they really did transgress a commandment of obedience.

However, when you start interpreting it symbolically, you get into a very sticky situation where you don’t know what is symbol and what is truth, and then there becomes no reason, as I said, to take the Bible any more seriously than one takes any other ancient book of myths. All of them contain morals, stories, a grain of truth… why just this one?

The Church, however slowly she might do so, authoritatively and authentically interprets the Scriptures. It’s not my responsibility to do so. And whether a particular Scripture is “meant” to be allegorical (rather than literal), the fact remains that all of the spiritual meanings of Scripture (allegorical, moral, and anagogical) rest on the literal sense of the passage first.

 

[Ideo]

The Church, however slowly she might do so, authoritatively and authentically interprets the Scriptures. It’s not my responsibility to do so. And whether a particular Scripture is “meant” to be allegorical (rather than literal), the fact remains that all of the spiritual meanings of Scripture (allegorical, moral, and anagogical) rest on the literal sense of the passage first.

So when do you determine when she’s finally gotten it right? I’m sure those people hundreds of years ago thought the Church was right when it said the earth was flat… heck, they killed people over it, so it must be true. But then some darned intellectuals came along, and the Church eventually had to accept that it was wrong. So, of course, they reinterpreted the Scriptures so that they would be right. But the fact is that they are going in the exact opposite direction of the scientific method. In the scientific method, you gather facts, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, record your observations, and then formulate a theory based on yours’ and others’ findings. The Church starts off with the theory that Christianity, Catholicism to be precise, is true, then they record observations which support that theory, ignoring or belittling facts which say differently. This is not proveable in any way, and I find it quite sad that you trust yourself to someone else so easily.

 

[japhy]

So when do you determine when she’s finally gotten it right?

When the Church definitively pronounces that a particular interpretation is or is not to be believed.

I’m sure those people hundreds of years ago thought the Church was right when it said the earth was flat… heck, they killed people over it, so it must be true. But then some darned intellectuals came along, and the Church eventually had to accept that it was wrong.

What dogma of the Church commanded belief in a flat earth? Who did the Church kill for believing the earth wasn’t flat?

The Church starts off with the theory that Christianity, Catholicism to be precise, is true, then they record observations which support that theory, ignoring or belittling facts which say differently. This is not proveable in any way, and I find it quite sad that you trust yourself to someone else so easily.

Of course the Church believes her religion to be true. She has it on the authority of God!

 

[Luke_K]

So when do you determine when she’s finally gotten it right? I’m sure those people hundreds of years ago thought the Church was right when it said the earth was flat… heck, they killed people over it, so it must be true. But then some darned intellectuals came along, and the Church eventually had to accept that it was wrong. So, of course, they reinterpreted the Scriptures so that they would be right. But the fact is that they are going in the exact opposite direction of the scientific method. In the scientific method, you gather facts, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, record your observations, and then formulate a theory based on yours’ and others’ findings. The Church starts off with the theory that Christianity, Catholicism to be precise, is true, then they record observations which support that theory, ignoring or belittling facts which say differently. This is not proveable in any way, and I find it quite sad that you trust yourself to someone else so easily.

Well like japhy said, when the Church defines it as an infallible doctrine, then the matter is closed for Catholics.

You seem to view religion and scientific reasoning as in conflict. The Church does not see it in that way.

Pope John Paul II emphasized the indispensability of both faith and reason and described them as being the “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” Faith held simply without the exercise of reason is condemned and “runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.” Two forms of this are fideism (blind faith over reason) and biblicism (reliance on biblical texts alone) and are explicitly rejected. Conversely, unaided human reason is unable to attain or to prove the ultimate truths of existence, which are revealed through faith and Christian revelation.

Pope John Paul II:

Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery”.

Science has not and does not prove anything without the faith that there are immutable, universal laws. Give me any scientific “law” that you KNOW has no exceptions, anywhere in the universe, at any time in history. It only has the best and most convincing interpretation for the time-being, which over time people refine or throw out as more observations are gathered. We just describe what happens, and apply mathematical models to “understand” what is going on.

At the most base level, every discipline has faith statements like the Church. For science, these could include: what we study is real, the world is uniform, our senses are reliable, and our minds process information reliably.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum. I really am curious, for those of you who accept evolution, as to where original sin came from. If you believe in evolution, then the Garden of Eden is a metaphor, right? Or do you interpret it some other way, like “this line is real, this line is metaphor”? So how did original sin come about if Genesis isn’t literal?

Suppose you are eaten by a lion. Someone comes along, looks at the tracks left by the lion, and mis-identifies them as the tracks of a zebra. The identification is wrong - but that does not mean the lion’s meal - you - stops being lion-food.​

So with OS: giving a wrong or non-existent cause for it, does not make OS any less real.

BTW, the story is not a metaphor - there is nothing for it to be a metaphor of. It’s difficult to categorise, but “myth” is possibly correct. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are usually referred to as primeval history - which is even better.

http://www.cghsnc.org/rmartin/classnotes/notes_primeval_history.htm

 

[Omyo12]

Omyo, if you do not believe that God could inspire an accurate writing of the past, then why do you believe in any of it?

Again you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying… You assume just because I don’t take it literal means I don’t take it as truth…

In this black-&-white view, it’s: “believe Genesis literally, or discredit the entire Bible.”
that argument is ridiculous!!
it’s like saying: “believe exactly 144,000 will be sealed or discredit the entire Bible.”

Take this for example:
Isaiah states the virgin (“young woman” in Hebrew) would conceive and bear a son who would be called Emmanuel.

Now Jesus wasn’t literally called Emmanuel, but Jesus; Emmanuel being a descriptive name of who he was…

Using your argument, you could have told Matthew:
“Why do you believe Jesus is the Messiah? Isaiah said his name would be Emmanuel, if you do not believe that God could inspire an accurate writing of the future, then why do you believe in any of it?”

A similar argument could be said about: “I will send you Elijah the prophet”

If all the writers are simply interpreting God’s word in their own way, then it becomes so twisted and convoluted that you don’t know what is God and what is man. There becomes absolutely no reason to take the bible as anything more than you take Greek mythology or the teachings of Buddhism. Both of those contain wonderful stories and moral lessons, but we do not worship the people who wrote them. However, when you worship what you consider to be God, who is revealed to you through the teachings of a man who lived thousands upon thousands of years ago, are you not simply worshiping that person’s idea of God?

This has nothing to do with the writers interpreting anything…

I’m saying the creation accounts are 100% true but that God revealed them in a very symbolic way similar to a prophecy.

Prophesies are symbolic, the Jews and Christians certainly argue on what they mean…
I read an interesting book by literary theorist Harold Bloom (a Jew) called “Jesus and Yahweh.” He argues how the NT writers completely misinterpreted the Tanakh to fit their ideas.
Christ himself spoke in parables, the meaning of them up for interpretation…
Catholics and Protestants argue about some of his teachings…

So really the Bible is no stranger to symbolism and the interpretation of the reader is very important…

You have no way of knowing which things in the holy book are real commands or just suggestions by a man of the time (stoning a raped virgin comes to mind)."

So do you distinguish amongst the Law?

 

[Ideo]

You guys are assuming your premise, and whatever follows is no longer valid (scientifically) because of that assumption. You are right in that it may be true, but there is no solid evidence. If the Muslim man on here that I’ve been conversing with is right, you are all going to be thrown into hell. He takes that on faith, just as you take it on faith that you are not. But the problem is the assumption of the premise- at that point, you interpret everything in your favor and in favor of your religion. If a religion cannot be proven by an unbiased source through the scientific method, it cannot be considered true by a logical and unbiased person, because if it could, like I said, it wouldn’t matter which religion you chose. You are not using logic when you interpret the scriptures in a way which favors them being true. They should be interpreted neither in a way which favors them being true OR a way which favors them being false (this is just as bad, in my opinion, because it introduces bias). They must first be taken at face value, studied in the context of the writing, and then the determination must be made whether they are valid or not. When you take it on faith, you leave no room for reason to have a foothold.

Perhaps I’m just an evil agnostic atheist who needs a couple hundred Catholics praying for her, but that’s the way I see it, and the way the scientific method sees it. BTW, if you are planning on praying for me, I appreciate the gesture, so I would like to direct your efforts towards something more fruitful. thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 Click on all the headers to give food, health care, literacy, and protection to the world and its inhabitants. You can even multitask and pray while you click. I would very much appreciate it.

 

[Omyo12]

You guys are assuming your premise, and whatever follows is no longer valid (scientifically) because of that assumption.

Hmmm… I think you’re confusing validity with soundness, and even then the premise has to be assumed first. If the premise is true, then the conclusion must true in a valid argument. However, what we are arguing is for the soundness of the premise in order for us to believe if the argument is true…

Also, based on how you worded the original post, I actually assumed you were a creationist trying to discredit evolution (lol). Therefore I approached you with a different mindset than I would have otherwise.

You are right in that it may be true, but there is no solid evidence. If the Muslim man on here that I’ve been conversing with is right, you are all going to be thrown into hell. He takes that on faith, just as you take it on faith that you are not. But the problem is the assumption of the premise- at that point, you interpret everything in your favor and in favor of your religion. If a religion cannot be proven by an unbiased source through the scientific method, it cannot be considered true by a logical and unbiased person, because if it could, like I said, it wouldn’t matter which religion you chose. You are not using logic when you interpret the scriptures in a way which favors them being true. They should be interpreted neither in a way which favors them being true OR a way which favors them being false (this is just as bad, in my opinion, because it introduces bias). They must first be taken at face value, studied in the context of the writing, and then the determination must be made whether they are valid or not. When you take it on faith, you leave no room for reason to have a foothold.

When it comes to the arguments for/against God, then it becomes a philosophical argument and not a scientific one. Science, while the best tool for mankind, is completely materialistic and therefore neutral by nature. It is neither theistic nor atheistic.

As for a religion, factual history (coupled again with philosophy) is the best study tool. However, it is virtually impossible for one to be completely unbiased in researching such subjective matters. Unfortunately, you cannot use numbers and equations in history…

It also depends on the person’s worldview. Not on how they logically view the observable and testable, but on how they view unprovable philosophical concepts.

It takes steps to go from “is there a god?” to “is there a true faith?”

There is no single answer to prove a religion.

Perhaps I’m just an evil agnostic atheist who needs a couple hundred Catholics praying for her, but that’s the way I see it, and the way the scientific method sees it. BTW, if you are planning on praying for me, I appreciate the gesture, so I would like to direct your efforts towards something more fruitful. thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 Click on all the headers to give food, health care, literacy, and protection to the world and its inhabitants. You can even multitask and pray while you click. I would very much appreciate it.

Almsgiving is a beautiful thing.

 

[japhy]

Ideo, I believe the Church because of the Apostles, who were witnesses of the events described in the New Testament and who died for their beliefs. They were Jews who knew what they would face for “leaving” the Mosaic covenant – they knew Israel’s sorrowful history – and yet they saw in Jesus something more. They recognized him as the Messiah promised by the Mosaic covenant, and he initiated the new covenant which had been prophesied.

I believe the Church because of the miracles and events which have accompanied her throughout history, especially the frequent occurrence of healing miracles at Lourdes. (A 50-year-old woman was very recently cured of Lou Gherig’s disease there.)

if you are planning on praying for me … direct your efforts towards something more fruitful. … give food, health care, literacy, and protection to the world and its inhabitants.

If I could ask a question from a strictly objective standpoint, why should I (or anyone) care about the food, health care, literacy, or protection for others? (Isn’t the world over-crowded?) What benefit is there for me to spend time or money or effort helping someone else I’ll never see and who’ll probably never help me?

 

[puzzleannie]

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum. I really am curious, for those of you who accept evolution, as to where original sin came from. If you believe in evolution, then the Garden of Eden is a metaphor, right? Or do you interpret it some other way, like “this line is real, this line is metaphor”? So how did original sin come about if Genesis isn’t literal?

there is no dilemma, if you accept the theory of evolution as scientific explanation of how humans appeared on this planet and are Catholic, you also accept that at some point during this process which is poetically, not literally described in Genesis, which clearly shows that there was a time and a process and an order leading up to the appearance of the first man and woman with a human soul infused in God’s image and all its faculties including free will and intellect. These first humans were given knowledge of God and his will and rejected it by a free will choice, which is original sin.

If you believe that the Genesis account is merely literal (thereby rejecting any and all of its deeper spiritual meanings) you believe the same thing, that the first human couple, endowed by God above all other creatures on earth with intellect, free will and knowledge, yet freely rejected God and his commands.

 

[Ideo]

Ideo, I believe the Church because of the Apostles, who were witnesses of the events described in the New Testament and who died for their beliefs. They were Jews who knew what they would face for “leaving” the Mosaic covenant – they knew Israel’s sorrowful history – and yet they saw in Jesus something more. They recognized him as the Messiah promised by the Mosaic covenant, and he initiated the new covenant which had been prophesied.

I believe the Church because of the miracles and events which have accompanied her throughout history, especially the frequent occurrence of healing miracles at Lourdes. (A 50-year-old woman was very recently cured of Lou Gherig’s disease there.)

There are several hundred people who report sightings of Sasquatch and aliens each year. That doesn’t mean that it is true (or false- there is simply not enough evidence to conclude). The fact is that we do not have the original manuscripts, nor do we have confirmation that what was written were 1) written by the people claimed, and 2) anything more than legends. Greeks dictated and eventually wrote their tales in much the same way, as did the Egyptians, Sumerians, and other cultures. In this day, word of mouth was still a common way for stories to be spread, and as anyone who has played Telephone will tell you, the story changes with each retelling. Even if we take the most conservative estimate of when these books were written, there is still plenty of time for legends to build. Heck, it takes us no more than a few minutes to change a story and make it more “dynamic”. If you assume that Jesus was God, then you can say that they wouldn’t exaggerate because of some inability to lie about what they had seen, or because it was simply so amazing that they couldn’t take it any further… but if you don’t take that on faith, it is resonable to conclude that the eyewitnesses, like eyewitnesses to any other event, were sometimes mistaken , and perhaps exaggerated (studies by independent groups show that eyewitnesses are often inaccurate and exaggerate). Even if they did not, the story would still naturally grow with the retelling. It is human psychology, and there is no solid reason not to apply it in this case.

The eye is a camera, but the brain that interprets it is not. When I went to magic shows, before I knew the tricks, I thought they were doing real magic and I would have told you so with absolute sincerity. Did it mean I was right?

Also, with the miracle you mentioned, was it documented by a reliable third party not affiliated with the Church? In cases of miracles, as always, the positive claim bears the burden of proof. You say so easily that Lou Gherig’s was cured, but if that claim came from a Wicca coven who performed healing spells, would you believe it so quickly? I doubt it.

If I could ask a question from a strictly objective standpoint, why should I (or anyone) care about the food, health care, literacy, or protection for others? (Isn’t the world over-crowded?) What benefit is there for me to spend time or money or effort helping someone else I’ll never see and who’ll probably never help me?

This would be a nice stab, except for the fact that atheism has absolutely no moral values attached to it, positive, negative, or neutral. Some are humanitarians, and some are not. I know of several Christians who were certainly not humanitarians.

The reason why humans naturally care for one another is an evolutionary advantage. The groups of animals who stuck together and cared for one another fared better than loners. Think lone wolf vs. wolf pack. Which one has a better chance of long term survival, and therefore more chance to pass on genes which encourage this trait?

My concern for others may have come from a process that did not have me particularly in mind, but I enjoy helping others nonetheless. Humans have a highly developed sense of empathy, like many animals, and we can “feel” the pain of others, and desire to help them, and therefore us, avoid that pain.
“When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.” ~Abraham Lincoln

Why does it have to be some complicated gift from God? Why can we not care for one another for our own sake? If you need a god to make you care about someone else, then you are a very sad person indeed, my friend. I don’t need a god to tell me that other people matter every bit as much as I matter. Why do I matter? Because I am here, alive- I feel… just as the cat sitting at my feet feels. We are one, all one, all fighting the same battle for survival. We help one another because it make us feel good- my cat feels good when he rubs up against my cheek, I feel good when I hold the door for an elderly woman.
Tell me, what is it about the existence of a god that suddenly makes our lives more meaningful than they are in themselves? What makes the life you believe in more meaningful than the life I believe in?

 

[japhy]

with the miracle you mentioned, was it documented by a reliable third party not affiliated with the Church? In cases of miracles, as always, the positive claim bears the burden of proof. You say so easily that Lou Gherig’s was cured, but if that claim came from a Wicca coven who performed healing spells, would you believe it so quickly? I doubt it.

“On Tuesday, Raco will be examined by a specialist at the prestigious Molinette Hospital in Turin. The hospital’s specialist, Adriano Chiro, has been treating her since 2006, according to Italian news reports.”

So yes, it’s being investigated. And I don’t doubt a Wiccan can perform healing spells (I believe both God and Satan exist), but I would want them investigated too.

I know of several Christians who were certainly not humanitarians. … Why does it have to be some complicated gift from God? Why can we not care for one another for our own sake? If you need a god to make you care about someone else, then you are a very sad person indeed, my friend. …

Okay, you took that much further than I intended it to go. Objectively, survival of my species doesn’t mean anything to me once I’m dead. And I didn’t mean to imply that you “need a god to make you care about” other people.

 

[Joakim]

The Uniate Catholics and the Orthodox have a different understanding of Original Sin. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit, they had a fall from Grace and lost their immortality and gained a fear of death. It is this that is the Original Sin and which is inherited. Christ came and redeemed mankind from the fear of death and by his 3 day harrowing of Hades He released all of the righteous souls of the past from Hades and restored life after death for us all. There is no question of the purity of the soul of each newborn, for the soul is given to us by God and God would not bestow on us a tainted soul. We have the gift of free choice and may taint our soul with sinful living any time after baptism, but this is not an original, inherited sin.
It has nothing to do with evolution which so many questioners have raised.