Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nostalgic Pushhead · 10-02-2006, 01:16 PM

I was reading The God Delusion, and Dawkins pointed out something so unbelievably obvious I can't believe I hadn't come across it anywhere, here or elsewhere. I'm sure its a well-pondered question and I've just missed it.

Very simply: most Christians take the OT, and especially Genesis, as metaphore. If Adam and Eve never really existed; if Eve never ate the apple; then what purpose did Jesus serve?

Therefore, moderate Christianity is clearly untenable. If a Christian doesn't believe in A&E, they can't believe in Christ's divinity, because there would be no original sin for him to sacrifice himself for. It becomes nonsense. (Or moreso than before.)

So how do moderate theologists cover for this? Do they just claim original sin existed anyway? What justifications do they have?

MerryAtheist · 10-02-2006, 08:39 PM

Not so with the Catholic Church.

Official Church teaching is that, while making use of figurative language, the story of Original Sin represents an actual event in human history (Catechism, ¶390).

They have to believe this, for the very reason you state: Because if Original Sin is just a metaphor, then why did Jesus have to die? No, in order for Christ to make sense, Original Sin had to occur for real.

What's really amazing to me is that the Catholic teaching goes even further; it asserts that "Death makes its entrance into human history" (Catechism, ¶400) through Original Sin, and that not only does humanity experience death because of this, but all creation does as well.

The implication here is that no death occurred prior to Original Sin. But evolutionary theory tells us that there was a long history of living and dying well before the rise of conscious man. Therefore, it is impossible to accept evolutionary theory while remaining a good Catholic, because the doctrine of Original Sin and evolutionary theory are directly opposed. If you accept one, you cannot accept the other.

Granted, I haven't read a whole lot on this subject, but even so, I am astonished I haven't come across this argument before - it seems like such an obvious contradiction.

Anat · 10-02-2006, 08:50 PM

Well, you can always bend and stretch that to mean "people becoming aware of mortality and evolving a conscience". We have evidence of Neandertal burials with grave goods, so I guess they must have had some awareness of mortality. Not sure how to determine how far back conscientiousness goes (though scolded dogs do behave as though they experience shame).

MerryAtheist · 10-02-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Well, you can always bend and stretch that to mean "people becoming aware of mortality and evolving a conscience". We have evidence of Neandertal burials with grave goods, so I guess they must have had some awareness of mortality.

Wow! That doesn't even come close to solving the riddle. Remember, the Catholic teaching is that no death occured (not even plant or animal) prior to a certain event in which man (or something with self-awareness) broke faith with God.

You'll have to try again...

Doug Shaver · 10-02-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadog

Remember, the Catholic teaching is that no death occured (not even plant or animal) prior to a certain event in which man (or something with self-awareness) broke faith with God.

I don't think so. Can you cite a Catholic source for that teaching?

MerryAtheist · 10-02-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't think so. Can you cite a Catholic source for that teaching?

Glad to!

The teaching is based in scripture:

Quote:

For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Romans 8:19-21

To the man he [God] said: “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken;
Genesis 3: 17-19

And in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:

Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay." Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground," for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 400

The meaning seems pretty clear: suffering and death for all creation is the result of Original Sin.

Chili · 10-02-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadog

Glad to!

And in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The meaning seems pretty clear: suffering and death for all creation is the result of Original Sin.

So?

Original sin is an actual event for all of creation including man. It gives us individuality as a person.

Original sin is a metaphor for the division in our mind between the conscious and subconscious mind with the conscious mind being a blank slate at birth that is blank until we begin to use it.

Pain is an illusion that is perceived only in the TOK (conscious mind) and so is death.

lpetrich · 10-02-2006, 09:43 PM

I've found the Catholic Catechism online in various places, like at the Vatican's site itself; paragraph 400 is in Original Sin.

And I find it odd that death is presumed to be something fundamentally unnatural or whatever -- as if we are supposed to be indestructible or something. I guess I have the opposite presumption -- that we are vulnerable to being destroyed and that the important question is how we manage to survive as long as we do.

In any case, there are oodles of geological evidence of pre-human death, evidence independent of how species come into existence. Most fossils are the remains of dead organisms, though some are of molted skins and the like. There is also the independent evidence of geological timescales; these are much greater than the lifespans of many organisms. And an abundance of evidence of extinction -- the large majority of species are now extinct.

GenesisNemesis · 10-02-2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

So?

Original sin is an actual event for all of creation including man. It gives us individuality as a person.

Original sin is a metaphor for the division in our mind between the conscious and subconscious mind with the conscious mind being a blank slate at birth that is blank until we begin to use it.

Pain is an illusion that is perceived only in the TOK (conscious mind) and so is death.

I'm sure the writers of Genesis were thinking exactly that.

Loomis · 10-02-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nostalgic Pushhead

... most Christians take the OT, and especially Genesis, as metaphore. If Adam and Eve never really existed; if Eve never ate the apple; then what purpose did Jesus serve?

I have a similar issue with God’s mouth and nostrils. The bible says Yahweh puffs smoke out his nose and blows fire out his mouth. I have no trouble with this, but it seems like all the believers want to pretend that the fire and smoke stuff is a metaphor.

How come a believer will believe that Jesus walked on water, but he won’t believe God blows smoke out his nose?

10-02-2006, 01:16 PM	#1
Nostalgic Pushhead Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: So. Burlington, Vermont Posts: 4,315	Is there an alternate source of Original Sin for the non-fundy? I was reading The God Delusion, and Dawkins pointed out something so unbelievably obvious I can't believe I hadn't come across it anywhere, here or elsewhere. I'm sure its a well-pondered question and I've just missed it. Very simply: most Christians take the OT, and especially Genesis, as metaphore. If Adam and Eve never really existed; if Eve never ate the apple; then what purpose did Jesus serve? Therefore, moderate Christianity is clearly untenable. If a Christian doesn't believe in A&E, they can't believe in Christ's divinity, because there would be no original sin for him to sacrifice himself for. It becomes nonsense. (Or moreso than before.) So how do moderate theologists cover for this? Do they just claim original sin existed anyway? What justifications do they have?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2006, 08:39 PM	#2
MerryAtheist Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 241	Not so with the Catholic Church. Official Church teaching is that, while making use of figurative language, the story of Original Sin represents an actual event in human history (Catechism, ¶390). They have to believe this, for the very reason you state: Because if Original Sin is just a metaphor, then why did Jesus have to die? No, in order for Christ to make sense, Original Sin had to occur for real. What's really amazing to me is that the Catholic teaching goes even further; it asserts that "Death makes its entrance into human history" (Catechism, ¶400) through Original Sin, and that not only does humanity experience death because of this, but all creation does as well. The implication here is that no death occurred prior to Original Sin. But evolutionary theory tells us that there was a long history of living and dying well before the rise of conscious man. Therefore, it is impossible to accept evolutionary theory while remaining a good Catholic, because the doctrine of Original Sin and evolutionary theory are directly opposed. If you accept one, you cannot accept the other. Granted, I haven't read a whole lot on this subject, but even so, I am astonished I haven't come across this argument before - it seems like such an obvious contradiction.

10-02-2006, 08:50 PM	#3
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Well, you can always bend and stretch that to mean "people becoming aware of mortality and evolving a conscience". We have evidence of Neandertal burials with grave goods, so I guess they must have had some awareness of mortality. Not sure how to determine how far back conscientiousness goes (though scolded dogs do behave as though they experience shame).

10-02-2006, 09:43 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I've found the Catholic Catechism online in various places, like at the Vatican's site itself; paragraph 400 is in Original Sin. And I find it odd that death is presumed to be something fundamentally unnatural or whatever -- as if we are supposed to be indestructible or something. I guess I have the opposite presumption -- that we are vulnerable to being destroyed and that the important question is how we manage to survive as long as we do. In any case, there are oodles of geological evidence of pre-human death, evidence independent of how species come into existence. Most fossils are the remains of dead organisms, though some are of molted skins and the like. There is also the independent evidence of geological timescales; these are much greater than the lifespans of many organisms. And an abundance of evidence of extinction -- the large majority of species are now extinct.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.