Original Sin

Safehands

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.
Remove the actuality of Adam and Eve and it all comes tumbling down.

uck51js9zml2yt

Just as well A&E were real then.....What the Pope says is a different matter though!

zoomtard

GK Chesterton, the great old humourist and journalist, famously claimed that original sin was "the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

J C

Safehands wrote: »

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.
Remove the actuality of Adam and Eve and it all comes tumbling down.

It's far worse than that ... if there was no Original Sin ... then there is no redemption from sin ... and the atoning and saving death of Jesus Christ for the all sin was as unnecessary as it was useless.

.........

Safehands wrote: »

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.

There is at least the follow problems with you claims :

Firstly, the church doesn't claim that. The first human beings that God had a direct relationship with, and imbued with immortal souls, are what scripture refers to Adam and Eve. Scripture is about spirituality.

Secondly, even if they had claimed what you claimed they do, all your remaining points are then non sequiturs.

J C

......... wrote: »

There is at least the follow problems with you claims :

Firstly, the church doesn't claim that. The first human beings that God had a direct relationship with, and imbued with immortal souls, are what scripture refers to Adam and Eve. Scripture is about spirituality.

The Cathecism of the Roman Catholic Church would beg to differ on this 'spiritual' interpretation and states quite explicitly that the first man was created and confirms that Adam and Eve were our first parents:-

Quote:-
"IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM

......... wrote: »

Secondly, even if they had claimed what you claimed they do, all your remaining points are then non sequiturs.

Modernist Theologians claim things along the lines that Safehands suggests ... and with all of the follow-on problems that he refers to ... and more.

Thinkingaboutit

Safehands wrote: »

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.
Remove the actuality of Adam and Eve and it all comes tumbling down.

Suggestions or comments by some modish Jesuit theologians are just the personal opinions of those men, and maybe the now pitiful Society of Jesus. Papal infallibility is invoked with such incredibible rarity that it is difficult to understand how it created a (small scale) schism after Vatican I with the Old Catholics of the Union of Ultrecht and allied Germans around Dr Döllinger creating their own minature north European Catholic Church. It still exists, combining more traditional liturgy with a liberal-left social praxis. The Pope in union with the Church will solemnly proclaim something things as definite, as dogma, but that hasn't happened in decades (not in the form required). Not having a stringently literal understanding of Genesis does not mean a collapse of Catholic teaching. Long before the present Superior General of the Jesuits, centuries in fact, metaphor and allegory has been used to draw out lessons from Scripture.

.........

J C wrote: »

The Cathecism of the Roman Catholic Church would beg to differ on this 'spiritual' interpretation and states quite explicitly that the first man was created and confirms that Adam and Eve were our first parents:-

Firstly, I'd prefer if you didn't pretend what I wrote and attempt to misrepresent it. Read it again. Carefully this time, and note where the full stops are.

Secondly, the Catholic Church supports evolution, as does most of Christianity. There's already a mega thread for refuting crackpot creationism theories and your lack of understanding of the term created.

J C wrote: »

Modernist Theologians claim things along the lines that Safehands suggests ... and with all of the follow-on problems that he refers to ... and more.

Theologians are not immune from claiming non sequtiers. All sorts of Theologians claim all sorts of things including God not existing . . . depending on their politics.

J C

......... wrote: »

Firstly, I'd prefer if you didn't pretend what I wrote and attempt to misrepresent it. Read it again. Carefully this time, and note where the full stops are.

I have no desire to misrepresent you ... so what exactly are you saying about the literal link between a literal first Adam (who originally ushered in sin) and the literal second Adam, Jesus Christ, who died in perfect atonement for all sin.

......... wrote: »

Secondly, the Catholic Church supports evolution, as does most of Christianity. There's already a mega thread for refuting crackpot creationism theories and your lack of understanding of the term created.

Name-calling doesn't strengthen your case in any way ... and certainly isn't something to be engaged in by any Christian when talking about a fellow Christian.

......... wrote: »

Theologians are not immune from claiming non sequtiers. All sorts of Theologians claim all sorts of things including God not existing . . . depending on their politics.

Whatever about the oxymoron whereby a person calls themselves a 'Theologian' ... and then argues that God doesn't exist ...
... there is a very large non sequitur in the argument that there was only a 'spiritual Adam' and therefore no actual Original Sin ... but despite this, Jesus Christ came to atone for sin.

J C

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Long before the present Superior General of the Jesuits, centuries in fact, metaphor and allegory has been used to draw out lessons from Scripture.

Metaphor and allegory is clearly used in the Bible e.g. when Jesus said that the Apostles would be 'fishers of men' he didn't obviously mean that they would literally use a hook and line or a net to capture the hearts of men and women for Christianity !!!

... but equally, Jesus Christ Himself wasn't a metaphor or an allegory ... but was the literal Messiah sent to Save us.

.........

J C wrote: »

I have no desire to misrepresent you ... so what exactly are you saying about the literal link between a literal first Adam (who originally ushered in sin) and the literal second Adam, Jesus Christ, who died in perfect atonement for all sin.

I still don't know what post you are reading, where did I mention or discuss this link ?

J C wrote: »

Name-calling doesn't strengthen your case in any way ... and certainly isn't something to be engaged in by any Christian when talking about a fellow Christian.

A theory can be crackpot with or without the person being. If you wan't to be Christian, then start by not misrepresenting what's posted and read posts before jumping off half cocked.

J C wrote: »

Whatever about the oxymoron whereby a person calls themselves a 'Theologian' ... and then argues that God doesn't exist ..

There's no oxymoran. You just need to be a bit more careful about the theologians you listen to and check them out more.

J C wrote: »

... there is a very large non sequitur in the argument that there was only a 'spiritual Adam' and therefore no actual Original Sin ... but despite this, Jesus Christ came to atone for sin.

There you go again. Where did I make that argument ? Read again what I wrote slowly and carefully to safehands. Pay particular attention to the sentence, full stops and the words actually there, not the ones you are imaging. You seem to be mixing my post up with safehands.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.
Remove the actuality of Adam and Eve and it all comes tumbling down.

Not at all.

Assume, for the purposes of the discussion, that Adam and Eve and their story as told in Genesis are all metaphorical. (Down, JC! Down!). Adam and Eve ar a metaphor for something, and the fact that they are themselves metaphorical doesn't prove that the "something" is unreal. In George Orwell's Animal Farm, for example, the farm and its animals are metaphors for the Soviet Union and its people and its leaders. The farm and its animals are entirely fictional and in many respects fantastic, but the Soviet Union and its people and leaders were completely real.

Thus, acknowlegding that a particular text is metaphorical doesn't mean that "it all comes tumbling down". For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

And on that, so far, you've got nothin'.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thus, acknowlegding that a particular text is metaphorical doesn't mean that "it all comes tumbling down". For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

True, but when you start using metaphors, what is signified becomes more ambiguous and open to interpretation. So if you go down the road of saying that Adam and Eve are metaphors and never actually existed for example, you have started down the slippery slope of allowing questions of what else in the Bible is also metaphorical and never actually happened as described. We all know where that leads.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thus, acknowlegding that a particular text is metaphorical doesn't mean that "it all comes tumbling down". For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.
And on that, so far, you've got nothin'.

As far as I can judge, the metaphor that is Adam and Eve is about the creation of humans, with all their flaws. Original sin too, is symbolic. We are capable of sinning. It is a good lesson for children to learn. Baptism does not get rid of that ability to sin, by the way.
On the 8th of December, 1854 Pope Pius IX gave us the Immaculate Conception. He was, I believe, speaking Ex Cathedra. If Original sin is Metaphorical, The Immaculate Conception is metaphorical too. We can of, course make up all sorts of theories about it, write books and papers about it, but that does not make it any more real.
The Catholic church has a real problem with Adam and Eve and Original Sin, because they don't want to deny the reality of evolution, but at the same time they need to defend their traditional teachings.
The learned wordsmiths of the church earn their keep on these topics with their ability to engage in high class semantics, which leave none of us any the wiser. We just think we are wiser.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all.

Assume, for the purposes of the discussion, that Adam and Eve and their story as told in Genesis are all metaphorical. (Down, JC! Down!). Adam and Eve ar a metaphor for something, and the fact that they are themselves metaphorical doesn't prove that the "something" is unreal.

What 'something' is real that Adam and Eve (and Original Sin and the Fall) are metaphors for ?
You are also going way beyond what the official position of the RCC currently is ... which is that Adam and Eve are literally our first parents and they literally introduced sin and death into the world ... and God literally became man and died in perfect atonement for sin.
Have you not read my quotes from the current RCC Cathecism on these matters ... no hint of Adam and Eve being metaphors there !!!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102964340&postcount=6

Peregrinus wrote: »

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, for example, the farm and its animals are metaphors for the Soviet Union and its people and its leaders. The farm and its animals are entirely fictional and in many respects fantastic, but the Soviet Union and its people and leaders were completely real.

Thus, acknowlegding that a particular text is metaphorical doesn't mean that "it all comes tumbling down". For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

And on that, so far, you've got nothin'.

Animal Farm is an obvious metaphor for the hypocracy of socialism in general ... and the Soviet Union in particular. It applies equally to today's 'champagne socialists' who draw fat salaries multiple times the average industrial wage ... and yet have the audacity to lecture everyone else on social issues.

When it comes to the Bible it all depends on which text you say is metaphorical ... there are many texts that are clearly metaphorical ... for example, the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' is clearly a metaphor for occult satanic knowledge that is still protected behind a structure of degrees in a 'tree-like' manner.

The problem is, if Adam and Eve never literally existed and weren't literally the first Human Beings (from whom everyone is decended) ... then there was no actual Fall or Original Sin ... and this means that there either isn't actually any sin/evil in the world (a bit of an evidential and logical 'stretch', to say the least) ... or God actually created sin and evil ... which is the heresy of dualism.

... so I'm sorry, but if Adam and Eve didn't literally exist ... then Christianity is nothin' ... but wishful thinking.

Why do you think that Anti-christians are so driven to deny Adam and Eve ... and the divinity (even existence) of Jesus Christ?

J C

......... wrote: »

A theory can be crackpot with or without the person being. If you wan't to be Christian, then start by not misrepresenting what's posted and read posts before jumping off half cocked.

A person who holds to a crackpot theory is effectively a crackpot.
It would serve your case better to stop name calling and start focussing on the issues at hand.

......... wrote: »

There's no oxymoran. You just need to be a bit more careful about the theologians you listen to and check them out more.

I am very familiar with modernist theologians and their heresys.
A theologian who argues that God doesn't exist is technically an anti-theist and/or an Atheist ... and calling themselves a 'theologian' is indeed an oxymoron.

......... wrote: »

There you go again. Where did I make that argument ? Read again what I wrote slowly and carefully to safehands. Pay particular attention to the sentence, full stops and the words actually there, not the ones you are imaging. You seem to be mixing my post up with safehands.

What argument exactly are you making in relation to Adam and Eve?

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thus, acknowlegding that a particular text is metaphorical doesn't mean that "it all comes tumbling down". For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

And on that, so far, you've got nothin'.

It 'all comes tumbling down' for any church that denies the historical existence of Adam and Eve, their Fall and the subequent atonement of Jesus Christ for the primary spiritual effect of the Fall ... sin.

.........

J C wrote: »

A person who holds to a crackpot theory is effectively a crackpot.
It would serve your case better to stop name calling and start focussing on the issues at hand.

I am very familiar with modernist theologians and their heresys.
A theologian who argues that God doesn't exist is technically an anti-theist and/or an Atheist ... and calling themselves a 'theologian' is indeed an oxymoron.

What argument exactly are you making in relation to Adam and Eve?

That's it, I've tried giving you the benefit of the doubt three times now, but on each and every occasion you keep pretending what I've posted and said, rather than what I actually have. Further 'conversation' while you continue to straw man like this is utterly pointless. You may as well just continue making up in your head the dialogue, but you're only kidding yourself.

J C

......... wrote: »

That's, I've tried JC, three times now, but on each and every occasion you keep pretending what I've posted and said, rather than what I actually have. Further 'conversation' like this is utterly pointless. You may as well just continue making up in your head the dialogue, I'm not falling for it any longer.

What have you tried 3 times?
For the avoidance of doubt, please tell us your argument about Adam and Eve ... and Original Sin.

I have quoted exactly what you said ... and responded directly to it.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

As far as I can judge, the metaphor that is Adam and Eve is about the creation of humans, with all their flaws. Original sin too, is symbolic. We are capable of sinning. It is a good lesson for children to learn. Baptism does not get rid of that ability to sin, by the way.
On the 8th of December, 1854 Pope Pius IX gave us the Immaculate Conception. He was, I believe, speaking Ex Cathedra. If Original sin is Metaphorical, The Immaculate Conception is metaphorical too. We can of, course make up all sorts of theories about it, write books and papers about it, but that does not make it any more real.
The Catholic church has a real problem with Adam and Eve and Original Sin, because they don't want to deny the reality of evolution, but at the same time they need to defend their traditional teachings.
The learned wordsmiths of the church earn their keep on these topics with their ability to engage in high class semantics, which leave none of us any the wiser. We just think we are wiser.

I'm tempted to stop you on line 2, where you say "original sin, too, is symbolic", but you don't offer any argument in support of this view. And yet the whole rest of your argument depends on this point. If this point is unsupported, your argument is not strong.

You could cheerfully say that the whole of Genesis was one long metaphor; this would do nothing to establish that "orginal sin is symbolic". The term "original sin" doesn't appear in Genesis, and the concept is not explained there.

Orginal sin is an account of human nature offered by theologians as an interpretation of Genesis. The validity of that account, it seems to me, doesn't depend at all on whether Genesis is understood literally or figuratively; that's a huge red herring.

If you want to critique the concept of original sin, go ahead. Right now, all you're offering is a flat assertion that it's purely symbolic, though you don't say what it symbolises. But, if you are attempting a critique, best to avoid the question of the historicity of the Genesis account. I think that will just take you down a blind alley.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

It 'all comes tumbling down' for any church that denies the historical existence of Adam and Eve, their Fall and the subequent atonement of Jesus Christ for the primary spiritual effect of the Fall ... sin.

I've no issue with Adam & Eve being literal characters. I have an issue with ducking valid argument (a la Hinault) by utilising the dogmatic (in the negative sense of the word) repetition of your starting position.

Peregrinus posed a specific issue for you to address. Could you progress the thing forward by way of counter argument?

In the global sense, a discussion forum can be used to broaden one's insights, modify one's position, eject thinking once thought useful - but considered no longer so once exposed to the light of more satisfactory counter argument. The currency of that process is winning/losing your points. And that means substantial engagement.

sbsquarepants

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve may indeed by metaphorical or symbolic figures but that is not important once they symbolise something real.
It's basically "when I say Adam and Eve, I really mean Andy and Eva - they were real people!"

There is either a "real" actual physical human being who was created without sin, but then acquired it, or there wasn't. We are either all directly descended from this man, or we aren't.
It doesn't really matter if his name was Adam or not, but if he doesn't physically exist - then I'm with JC, the whole rest of the story is absolute nonsense. If the very starting point of the story didn't actually happen - how can anything that results from that starting point be seen as valid?

If you were found guilty of a crime and sentenced to prison, but then it turns out the crime was never even committed in the first place - you'd expect to be released and compensated at the very least wouldn't you!

Safehands

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve may indeed be metaphorical or symbolic figures

I think, in scientific terms which the RC church seems to agree with, it's a bit of a stretch to think they were real people.

If original sin is true then God contiues to create imperfect people, when he could create perfect people just as easily.

.........

Safehands wrote: »

I think, in scientific terms which the RC church seems to agree with, it's a bit of a stretch to think they were real people.

Not really. The Church does assert these were real people who made real choices and chose sin over God. As I said in the first post they were most likely the first human beings sufficiently evolved, that God then imbued with immortal souls (but bear in mind here for this entire subject, the primary importance for Christianity is always the spiritual / eternal) and had a direct relationship with.

In genetics, Science already knows about the east African, "Mitochondrial Eve", who lived somewhere between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago, the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line. Note this does not mean she is the actual Eve, but she could possibly be a decedent of hers. Later in pre-history, the total worldwide population at about 130,000 years ago is estimated at only 100,000 to 300,000. In the 1500's compared to today, only 450-500 million human beings existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

If you want a very imperfect physical analogy, a pair of drug addicts can pass on their actual physical addiction to drugs and HIV and to their newborn kids, who through no fault of their own then have to deal with it, but when they become old enough, they then have their own choices how they behave and whether to take drugs or not. In spiritual terms it's not our fault that original sin was passed into us, and we have to deal with the consequences, but when we are old enough to know better and reject sin, we can chose to do so, or continue in it, with all the spiritual consequences of same.

Safehands wrote: »

If original sin is true then God continues to create imperfect people, when he could create perfect people just as easily.

He did create perfect people and instead they chose sin and therefore to pass on the devastating effects of same and the tendency to sin. He could have wiped his hands of the human race there and then, instead, no matter how much they continued to sin throughout scripture and bring physical death and worse, eternal spiritual death upon themselves, he always continues to offers the human race a lifeline. All of scripture, old and new testament both, continually tries to remind man, that sin, chosen by man, always results in physical, and worse, eternal spiritual death. Or to put it simply "The wages of sin are death" (eternal spiritual). Yet all through scripture, in example after example, man keeps on sinning and suffering the same self inflicted consequences of it. It's a little bit like a Doctor continually telling people to choose to stop smoking and eat healthily for their own good . . . yet many keep doing otherwise untill it's too late for them.

J C

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve may indeed by metaphorical or symbolic figures but that is not important once they symbolise something real.
It's basically "when I say Adam and Eve, I really mean Andy and Eva - they were real people!"

There is either a "real" actual physical human being who was created without sin, but then acquired it, or there wasn't. We are either all directly descended from this man, or we aren't.
It doesn't really matter if his name was Adam or not, but if he doesn't physically exist - then I'm with JC, the whole rest of the story is absolute nonsense. If the very starting point of the story didn't actually happen - how can anything that results from that starting point be seen as valid?

If you were found guilty of a crime and sentenced to prison, but then it turns out the crime was never even committed in the first place - you'd expect to be released and compensated at the very least wouldn't you!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

I think, in scientific terms which the RC church seems to agree with, it's a bit of a stretch to think they were real people.

Sections of the RCC, in common sections of many other churches are trying to 'ride two horses' which are running in different directions on this one ... if conventional science is correct then Adam and Eve never existed ... and original sin never happened ... and Jesus Christ was wasting His time dying to remit sin (sin, which would have to actually have been created by God originally) ... if Adam and Eve didn't exist and Fall.
It's as stark and heretical as that.

Safehands wrote: »

If original sin is true then God contiues to create imperfect people, when he could create perfect people just as easily.

That would be true, if by 'God continues to create' you mean some kind of God-directed process continues with life.
... but we know that life is self-sustaining ... and reproduces itself without any apparent assistance being required from or provided by God.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

Peregrinus posed a specific issue for you to address. Could you progress the thing forward by way of counter argument?

What issue was that? ... please point it out and I'll be happy to address it.

J C

......... wrote: »

Not really. The Church does assert these were real people who made real choices and chose sin over God. As I said in the first post they were most likely the first human beings sufficiently evolved, that God then imbued with immortal souls (but bear in mind here for this entire subject, the primary importance for Christianity is always the spiritual / eternal) and had a direct relationship with.

... one serious problem with this conjecture is that Genesis clearly states that sin, disease and death were all ushered in by the Fall.

... and sin, disease and death didn't exist before the Fall.

... but you are saying that living creatures lived (and died) for many many years before the supposed imbuing of the first human beings with a soul by God and then supposedly promptly Falling (presumably).

This is in direct contradiction of the principle that both death and sin were first introduced at the Fall ... when the wages of sin first became death.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

What issue was that? ... please point it out and I'll be happy to address it.

This.. thanks

peregrinus wrote:

For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

.........

J C wrote: »

... one serious problem with this conjecture is that Genesis clearly states that sin, disease and death were all ushered in by the Fall.

... and sin, disease and death didn't exist before the Fall.

... but you are saying that living creatures lived (and died) for many many years before the supposed imbuing of the first human beings with a soul by God and then supposedly promptly Falling (presumably).

This is in direct contradiction of the principle that both death and sin were first introduced at the Fall ... when the wages of sin first became death.

You can keep on trying to build strawmen JC . . . and this isn't crackpot creationism theory mega-thread mk2 . . . and animals etc. don't commit sin and don't have eternal souls as human beings do . . . never have and never will.

antiskeptic

......... wrote: »

and animals etc. don't commit sin and don't have eternal souls as human beings do . . . never have and never will.

The idea is that man had dominion over all on the earth. When he fell, all under his dominion fell. A bit like all Germans suffering under the dominionship of their dictator.

sbsquarepants

......... wrote: »

You can keep on trying to build strawmen JC . . . and this isn't crackpot creationism theory mega-thread mk2 . . . and animals etc. don't commit sin and don't have eternal souls as human beings do . . . never have and never will.

I'm not entirely sure if I'm taking you up wrong here or not.

Are you suggesting we had a situation whereby animals, including pre human hominids, lived, died and evolved basically as we observe now, but then at some stage humans appeared or reached a stage where god decided to set us apart and imbue us with a soul, at this stage we became immortal and free from disease etc, but shortly after we broke the rules and got demoted back to being mere mortals, but nonetheless keeping the eternal soul which he will either reward or punish in the next life depending on how we spend this one?

Safehands

......... wrote: »

As I said in the first post they were most likely the first human beings sufficiently evolved, that God then imbued with immortal souls (but bear in mind here for this entire subject, the primary importance for Christianity is always the spiritual / eternal) and had a direct relationship with

Most likely, according to who?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm tempted to stop you on line 2, where you say "original sin, too, is symbolic", but you don't offer any argument in support of this view. And yet the whole rest of your argument depends on this point. If this point is unsupported, your argument is not strong.

I offer you every science book written in the last few hundred years. There is zero, (0), no evidence that Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden were actual people or places. In that event, we can accurately say they were symbolic of the first man and the first woman and that the sin they committed, in disobeying God, was symbolic of man's ability to sin.

Adam's existence is a completely unsupported story, so is Original sin and de facto, the immaculte conception and the infallability of the Pope.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

if conventional science is correct then Adam and Eve never existed ... and original sin never happened ... and Jesus Christ was wasting His time dying to remit sin (sin, which would have to actually have been created by God originally)

I always wonder about that. Is that sin actually Original sin? And how did Christ "remit" sin by dying? Did his dying actually change anything? Sin is still committed.

Peregrinus

Original sin is not the sin that Adam and Eve (are said to have) committed. It's the sinful element or sinful propensity within our own nature; sinfulness that we originate with (hence "original") rather than guilt for sinful acts for which we are individually responsible.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Original sin is not the sin that Adam and Eve (are said to have) committed. It's the sinful element or sinful propensity within our own nature; sinfulness that we originate with (hence "original") rather than guilt for sinful acts for which we are individually responsible.

I don't know where you get that from.

However, assuming it is, Baptism is supposed to get rid of Original sin. If it is as you describe, baptism clearly doesn't affect it in any way.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

I don't know where you get that from.

From being a Christian. This is pretty basic stuff. Original sin is the sinful condition inherent in humanity, not the particular acts (said to have been) done by Adam and Eve. The Wikipedia article on the subject is as good a place to start as any other. If you're looking for something a bit more authoritative (if not quite so readable) there's the discussion of the topic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Safehands wrote: »

However, assuming it is, Baptism is supposed to get rid of Original sin. If it is as you describe, baptism clearly doesn't affect it in any way.

No, individually we're all still fallen, obviously. As mentioned previously in the thread, there's abundant evidence of that. The claim for baptism is not that it effects redemption from our fallen nature, but that it makes it possible.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

From being a Christian. This is pretty basic stuff. Original sin is the sinful condition inherent in humanity, not the particular acts (said to have been) done by Adam and Eve. The article on the subject is as good a place to start as any other.

Ref Wikipedia:Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
That seems pretty clear to me.

Peregrinus

Yes, it is clear. It's humanity's state of sin. It stems from the Fall, which in turn is the result of the sin of Adam and Eve. If you think the sin of Adam and Eve was a literal thing, then it stems from that thing. If you think the sin of Adam and Eve is a metaphor or symbol for something else, then it stems from that something else. Either way, it's humanity's state of sin.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, individually we're all still fallen, obviously. As mentioned previously in the thread, there's abundant evidence of that. The claim for baptism is not that it effects redemption from our fallen nature, but that it makes it possible.

The Catholic church teaches "We see the principal of "Original Sin" not just mentioned in Romans but also in 1 Cor. xv.21,22 and in Eph. ii.3 . The basic understanding that baptism removes this sin was understood by the apostles in the early church scripture shows this "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away"

So supposedly, Baptism removes Original Sin. I'm not making it up Peregrinus.

Peregrinus

Well, yes, as the Catechism itself says, " Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

But, either way, how does this bear on your original suggestion that, if Adam and Eve are metaphorical, original sin must also be?

Press_Start

I feel the same way as a lot of people here.
As a young man in an increasingly liberal/ atheistic country it's hard to identify with a religion. I myself try to exhibit a part of all religions while steering lear of the far reaches of them.

As far as I can tell, the religious texts of old, are either a spiritual guideline text to guide one to reach a life worth being happy with at the end, (the Koran, the Tripitaka) or are filled with stories to either show what good faith is embodied as, or as a set of old age Encyclopaedia to help understand what we didn't comprehend back then.
I often look at the old testament as a collection of stories to compare to real world scenarios.
Adam and Eve are to me, an example of a basic society, and the example of free will being the potential downfall of human nature. They had literally everything they needed, but the curiosity was too much and hence the Original Sin.
In parallel I find the the story of Noah, is one of sickness and virus, or of natural selection. Occasionally the host (Earth) needs to be purged of all corruption (sickness) and the chosen few (the living body) is spared. They are all stories to be learned form. In the same capacity, that any technology that seems advanced enough will seem like magic in comparison, until a scientific explanation is developed. I don't have explanations for all Bible stories and sagas, but there are some more scholarly than I who may have input.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, as the Catechism itself says, " Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

Hold on a minute, if it erases Original sin then it is gone. If original sin is an inclination to sin then does baptism remove that? Does it make any difference whatsoever?

Lets face it, it is all nonsense. It makes no sense at all. That does not stop people coming up with all sorts of "Facts" about the affect of baptism or what original sin is.

Something which is metaphorical is not factual. We cannot make "facts" from a metaphorical tale. We can try, that is what story telling is all about, but there is no evidence for Adam and Eve and there is absolutely no evidence for Original sin.

For goodness sake, no two people can actually agree on what original sin means.
So they make up explanations which make sense in their minds, just as you are doing.

PhuckHugh

J C wrote: »

Metaphor and allegory is clearly used in the Bible e.g. when Jesus said that the Apostles would be 'fishers of men' he didn't obviously mean that they would literally use a hook and line or a net to capture the hearts of men and women for Christianity !!!

... but equally, Jesus Christ Himself wasn't a metaphor or an allegory ... but was the literal Messiah sent to Save us.

That's all fine except there's no record of anyone called Jesus ever existing - therefore all we have is a book based on metaphors and allegories to go on.

If you want to believe in Jesus, that's fine, but please credit your belief as based on opinion/faith and not facts.

Safehands

PhuckHugh wrote: »

That's all fine except there's no record of anyone called Jesus ever existing - therefore all we have is a book based on metaphors and allegories to go on.

If you want to believe in Jesus, that's fine, but please credit your belief as based on opinion/faith and not facts.

Whether you believe in him or not, you can't have many arguments about what he said, or is supposed to have said. What he preached or is supposed to have preached, is a great blueprint for how you should live your life.

Peregrinus

PhuckHugh wrote: »

That's all fine except there's no record of anyone called Jesus ever existing - therefore all we have is a book based on metaphors and allegories to go on.

If you want to believe in Jesus, that's fine, but please credit your belief as based on opinion/faith and not facts.

There's no record of him, if you exclude the various records we have of him.

But that's maybe another discussion. We've had at least one thread on the historicity of Jesus.

.........

Safehands wrote: »

Most likely, according to who?

According to Science and Christianity. Physical and Spiritual. It's not Science V's Christianity, or Truth vs Truth, true science and true Christianity don't conflict, because the truth is simply the truth.

.........

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure if I'm taking you up wrong here or not.

Are you suggesting we had a situation whereby animals, including pre human hominids, lived, died and evolved basically as we observe now, but then at some stage humans appeared or reached a stage where god decided to set us apart and imbue us with a soul, at this stage we became immortal and free from disease etc, but shortly after we broke the rules and got demoted back to being mere mortals, but nonetheless keeping the eternal soul which he will either reward or punish in the next life depending on how we spend this one?

Well it is hard, if not impossible, for both of us to satisfactorily try and summarise all of evolution, human history and Development in a few paragraphs. God always planned that Human Beings would have an immortal soul and physical body. Evolution was the means of creating that physical reality. Less than a blink for an eternal being. "Shortly After" Shortly for a human being, or shortly for God- we don't know the actual timespan. Scripture says to God who has existed infinitely, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. I don't know if anything infinite looks on 'time' the same way as we do. We were't "demoted back to mere mortals", man's soul is eternal, you're confusing spiritual and physical death and bar from 'heaven' with non existence. As for self chosen hell and self chosen separation from God, the deliberate separation from the source of all good love peace will of course result in stubborn self chosen torment. The problem is theses short physical conversation answers will always be insufficient. What I am trying to explain physically/in words can only really be understood spirituality. It's a bit like explaining music to a deaf person, who's never heard a note, using physical words and descriptions - you could write a hundred thousand words about music, but it will never do music justice or convey it sufficiently.

J C

wrote:

antiskepticThis.. thanks

Originally Posted by peregrinus
For that, you need to establish that what the metaphor signifies is also unreal.

The onus is on the person stating that Adam and Eve are metaphors for 'something' real to tell us what this is.

As a conventional scientist, I know that Adam and Eve physically existed and are the common parents of all of Humanity - so that makes the claim that they were metaphors invalid.
http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

It seems to me that a huge part of Catholic teachings stem from a belief in Adam and Eve. But today's church seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not literal figures, they are metophorical. If that is so, then original sin, which is derived from the sin of Adam, is not real. If that is not real then there is no basis for the Immaculate Conception and that in turn calls into question the infallability of the Pope.
Remove the actuality of Adam and Eve and it all comes tumbling down.

Your anti-Catholic bigotry is getting worse.

First of all Baptism is the rite shared by all Christians. So Baptism is a huge part of Christian teachings.

Baptism is the rejection of Original Sin, and it is also the initiation in to Christian faith.