Posted                          

quote:

---

Except that we now know there was no garden of Eden, no era of innocence without suffering. Humans have been killing each other, suffering, dying etc. since before they were actually humans.

---

quote:

---

Some hypotheses

In the different attempts to reconcile with Revelation the scientific theory of evolution and of polygenism, proposals valid in themselves, it must be firmly held that the dogma remains unchanged in its fullness of truth, while the theological explanation is perfected, so that it can accord better with the modern scientific and philosophical mentality.

1. One opinion, the simplest, says that at a certain moment of evolution when full consciousness was first reached, man was placed by God in a state of original justice. This, however, lasted for a very short time and Adam fell back quickly on account of his sin into the previous state. Since the state of justice was of short duration, it left no traces in palaeontology, which knows nothing of it.

This is the simplest solution, too simple in fact to convince; therefore, the problem must be studied in greater depth.

2. More acceptable is the explanation proposed by M. Labourdette which observes that man coming from evolution was constituted in the state of original justice, receiving grace and a complex of gifts, which for him was an incomparable wealth. Nothing, however, leads us to expect that through these gifts the first man would have quickly reached complete perfection in every direction. Rather, he would have been at the beginning of a tremendous progress which he would have been able to attain by means of grace and the divine gifts.

This concept of Labourdette seems natural and logical, but too general. So other hypotheses come down to more precise particulars.

3. According to another recently proposed hypothesis, humanity continued to develop not only somatically but also psychologically and intellectually. At a certain moment God offered to man, enjoying his first responsibility, a particular assistance. Because he had from birth this life of grace, he would have dominated nature, even to the point of eliminating suffering and death, by the perfect development of his person. In fact man refused this gift; but the divine plan was not to be rendered ineffective by sin, rather it would be actualized in the Redemption and in the Paschal Mystery of Christ and would be perfected in the eschatological kingdom of God.

This hypothesis does not appear contrary to the dogma; nevertheless it seems less probable in so far as it admits an original justice, which was virtual rather than actual, that is, contained in the initial help of God. The Sources of Revelation are more in favour of an original justice possessed initially and actually by man.

4. Yet another opinion says that the original justice must not be placed at the beginning but rather at the end of huma history, that is, of creation understood as a continuous evolutionary progress. It is therefore a destination which man must reach at the end of his existence by his collaboration with divine help.

The sinful state of man results, according to the opinion, not from a sin committed by a first parent at the beginning of history, but rather from the fact that man w***es to remain exactly as he is. Hence, he is opposed to the grace which urges him towards the supernatural. This opposition to grace is aggravated by the influence of the sinful world, that is, by the influence of the sin of all men.

Understood in this way, original sin consists in the impossibility of man making his way, unaided by grace, towards the end ordained by God. Besides, concupiscence tends to sever relations with God while the sin of the world, in which man lives, inclines him towards evil.

This opinion is defective in that original justice is placed not at the beginning but at the end of human existence. This does not appear very compatible with the data of Revelation. Also, the concept of original sin as sin of the world causes notable difficulties both with regard to the interpretation of Genesis 3, which is considered as a completely symbolic story, and more especially with regard to the doctrine of original sin as defined by thy Council of Trent.

The same opinion is also developed by other theologians. In it original sin consists not simply in an offence committed by our first parents at the beginning of humanity, but in the fact that all men, we ourselves included, commit the sin. Every child that is born is admitted into this sinful world and impelled by it towards evil.

This idea of original sin as the sin of the world does not seem to harmonize very well with Revelation and in particular with the Council of Trent, according to which the child is born with a guilt which is cleansed by Baptism (Session V; DS, 1513, 1515). If this sin of the world theory were true, there would be no guilt in the child to be washed away. Baptism would only serve to introduce the child into the Church. This, however, does not agree with the Council of Trent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Yet another opinion says that the original justice must not be placed at the beginning but rather at the end of human history, that is, of creation understood as a continuous evolutionary progress. It is therefore a destination which man must reach at the end of his existence by his collaboration with divine help.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've often seen the Adam and Eve story as about the dawning of consciousness and shame. So, animals are innocent, even though they kill and so on.

So presumably primitive hominids were innocent; but at some point, humans began to conceive of themselves, and then lost their innocence. Now they became morally conscious, and could experience shame and guilt.

However, I haven't the foggiest as to how God fits into that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evil is contingent. It goes with creation. There is no 'problem' of evil. If Satan didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary for Voltaire to invent him. ...

---

(Oh, I love that!)

Everything is contingent except God; everything is created except God; everything is mortal except God; only God is perfect. So in creation, God lovingly made room for that-which-is-not-God, and loved creation out into existence. That's "original blessing." But because creation is not God, it falls short of all God's perfections. It lacks love, it lacks goodness, it lacks unity, it lacks beauty, it lacks truth,* all to some degree - and that lack is what we know and experience as evil. When it is found in human (moral) behavior, we call it sin.

So our problem is not original sin - I don't really have much use for that particular dogma, and as an Episcopalian, I'm free to toss it out. Our problem is that, as creatures, we are bound, if you will, to imperfection and to corruptibility and mortality. We couldn't be otherwise. Even God could not have created us free from corruptibility and imperfection. They go with creatureliness.

Rather, God's problem - and ours, but really God's, more, since God chose to create - is that God's creation, left to its own devices, will end in decay and annihilation, while unleashing all kinds of evils along the way.

God "solves" that through the Incarnation. It's a mystery beyond our comprehension (as we're creatures, and have limitations like that), and the best I can state it is this: By joining the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, God has overcome the inherent alienation of creation from the creator. The Creator became creature, wedded creature and Creator together, and brought creation itself into the very life of the Holy Trinity (which is what the Ascension of Christ is really all about).

Now innocence is a virtue we can gain, and do gain, through Christ who possessed it (and all other virtues) all along.


*You'll note that most of these - beauty, goodness, unity, truth - are the "transcendentals" of philosophy; meaning they transcend all accidental categories, so that all things possess them to some degree. Transcendentals are also considered to be "convertible." IOW, all things have some degree of beauty, goodness, truth, and unity to the extend that they are real. That's one of the classical arguments against a dualistic system where good and evil (or God and Satan) are equals: I believe it was CS Lewis who pointed out that Satan possesses at least the (philosophical) good of existence, and therefore is not as "perfectly" evil as God is good. Lewis believed in a literal Satan; I take him to be metaphor, but that's beside the point.

[ 21. September 2014, 22:20: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

(and, itsarumdo, from BITTER experience, NEVER go there!)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:

Everything is contingent except God; everything is created except God; everything is mortal except God; only God is perfect. So in creation, God lovingly made room for that-which-is-not-God, and loved creation out into existence. That's "original blessing." But because creation is not God, it falls short of all God's perfections. It lacks love, it lacks goodness, it lacks unity, it lacks beauty, it lacks truth,* all to some degree - and that lack is what we know and experience as evil. When it is found in human (moral) behavior, we call it sin.

So our problem is not original sin - I don't really have much use for that particular dogma, and as an Episcopalian, I'm free to toss it out. Our problem is that, as creatures, we are bound, if you will, to imperfection and to corruptibility and mortality. We couldn't be otherwise. Even God could not have created us free from corruptibility and imperfection. They go with creatureliness.

Rather, God's problem - and ours, but really God's, more, since God chose to create - is that God's creation, left to its own devices, will end in decay and annihilation, while unleashing all kinds of evils along the way.

God "solves" that through the Incarnation. It's a mystery beyond our comprehension (as we're creatures, and have limitations like that), and the best I can state it is this: By joining the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, God has overcome the inherent alienation of creation from the creator. The Creator became creature, wedded creature and Creator together, and brought creation itself into the very life of the Holy Trinity (which is what the Ascension of Christ is really all about).

Now innocence is a virtue we can gain, and do gain, through Christ who possessed it (and all other virtues) all along.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
* 've often seen the Adam and Eve story as about the dawning of consciousness and shame. So, animals are innocent, even though they kill and so on.

So presumably primitive hominids were innocent; but at some point, humans began to conceive of themselves, and then lost their innocence. Now they became morally conscious, and could experience shame and guilt.

However, * haven't the foggiest as to how God fits into that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Survival of the fittest is a dangerous phrase, as it can all too easily lead to the idea that the biggest and strongest are most likely to survive.

---

quote:

---

Well, look at the dinosaurs, who were pretty big.
It's getting close to 'red in tooth and claw' which again is incorrect. For example, cockroaches have lasted pretty well, not because they are strong and ferocious, but because they are adapted to their environment.

Or you can think of flightless birds and eyeless fish, and so on. Sometimes the weak and the slow survive pretty well.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in neither original sin nor the fall, so I guess that limits my ability to discuss on this thread a bit.

What I do believe is that evolution has an aspect of "looking out for number one" and part of God's wishes for us ('to be come sinless' if you want) is that we overcome these restraints evolution has brought us.

---

I don't believe in original sin or the fall so I'll join you in not discussing it

In defense of evolution, much of the "survival of the fittest" rhetoric ignores the way evolution occurs for social organisms. A mother defending her children or a man sacrificing his life to protect his brother both help the survival of the genes of the social group.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I don't really get what 'broken' means in relation to nature, unless people want vegetarian lions, I suppose.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
"Survival of the fittest" is actually a definition of "fittest" (or maybe even a tautology) because "fittest" = "adapted to their environment" = "survive pretty well."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Darwin did use the phrase, survival of the fittest, but 'fittest' then meant 'fitted'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have read that one of the philosophical quandaries of evolution is to define "fitness" in such a way that "survival of the fittest" isn't a tautology.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Darwin did use the phrase, survival of the fittest, but 'fittest' then meant 'fitted'.

---

AIUI Darwin himself never used the phrase. It was coined by Thomas Huxley.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Survival of the fittest is a dangerous phrase, as it can all too easily lead to the idea that the biggest and strongest are most likely to survive.

Well, look at the dinosaurs, who were pretty big.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Creation is broken by definition. Which is good. As He said. God could not intend otherwise. What He intends is for it to transcend.

---

1. There is a nasty streak about evolution. It involves death, competition for limited resources, looking out for yourself in the first place ...
2. I don't believe that this is the result of the fall, sin, the devil, a demiurg ... God created the world in this way.
3. The question "Why would a good God create such a world?" is related to the Problem of Evil of course. My own partial take on it is that living in a limited world is necessary for us to have free will.
4. Evolution doesn't have a moral dimension in itself. These things started to be seen as 'bad' when conscient humans arrived on the scene.
5. Evolution isn't all bad. There are many examples of animals who collaborate with eachother.
6. I still believe there is a selfish element to most of these forms of collaboration though. Helping the group can improve your own chances of survival. Helping your children allows your genes to live on. Therefore, I still hesitate to classify this collaboration as altruism or self-sacrifice.
7. There are some reported cases of altruism in animals. Dolphins rescuing drowned people for example. I do think that the frequency of these cases is exaggerated in some discussions. But I'm willing to concede that 'higher' animals have some form of proto-morality.
8. At least in part, the task God has given us is to transcend some of the limitations put upon us by evolution. To become altruist or self-sacrificial, even when evolution says we shouldn't. This is in large part how I interpret the references to the Kingdom of God in the Gospels.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Survival of the fittest is a dangerous phrase, as it can all too easily lead to the idea that the biggest and strongest are most likely to survive.

Well, look at the dinosaurs, who were pretty big.

---

And probably the most successful group of animals ever to walk the planet. They were the dominant land animals for 150 million years or so. Of course, in the last 65 million it's been the smaller ones that have survived, as a rule. They are still the dominant flying animals. A tremendously important and successful group, as I said.

---

It puts an entirely new slant on dinosaur shaped turkey bits.

[ 25. September 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Creation is broken by definition. Which is good. As He said. God could not intend otherwise. What He intends is for it to transcend.

---

I find myself gloriously agreeing with you. Which is a rather nice thing.

I'm still trying to fit my own thoughts on the subject into a somewhat coherent narrative. Not sure if I'm succeeding (or indeed whether I should). But this is what I've got so far.

1. There is a nasty streak about evolution. It involves death, competition for limited resources, looking out for yourself in the first place ...
2. I don't believe that this is the result of the fall, sin, the devil, a demiurg ... God created the world in this way.
3. The question "Why would a good God create such a world?" is related to the Problem of Evil of course. My own partial take on it is that living in a limited world is necessary for us to have free will.
4. Evolution doesn't have a moral dimension in itself. These things started to be seen as 'bad' when conscient humans arrived on the scene.
5. Evolution isn't all bad. There are many examples of animals who collaborate with eachother.
6. I still believe there is a selfish element to most of these forms of collaboration though. Helping the group can improve your own chances of survival. Helping your children allows your genes to live on. Therefore, I still hesitate to classify this collaboration as altruism or self-sacrifice.
7. There are some reported cases of altruism in animals. Dolphins rescuing drowned people for example. I do think that the frequency of these cases is exaggerated in some discussions. But I'm willing to concede that 'higher' animals have some form of proto-morality.
8. At least in part, the task God has given us is to transcend some of the limitations put upon us by evolution. To become altruist or self-sacrificial, even when evolution says we shouldn't. This is in large part how I interpret the references to the Kingdom of God in the Gospels.

Not sure if this is completely coherent yet. Maybe if I let it simmer for a while it will be.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

itsarumdo: Sorry, I just can't agree for several reasons - the principle that something is deliberately made broken I can't go with.

---

quote:

---

itsarumdo: Free will creates huge possibilities, but also the possibility to self-break.

---

quote:

---

itsarumdo: Or in this case, to separate, to name things as if they were separate. Every time we use a noun without also being aware of the relationships that "object" exists in, we perpetuate the fall.

---

quote:

---

itsarumdo: Particularly when we objectify evil, as if it is something we own or are ("I am ill", "I have a cold"), or we believe that it exists. This solidifies it and manifests it rather than it remaing a spiritual "idea".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Survival of the fittest is a dangerous phrase, as it can all too easily lead to the idea that the biggest and strongest are most likely to survive.

Well, look at the dinosaurs, who were pretty big.

---

And probably the most successful group of animals ever to walk the planet. They were the dominant land animals for 150 million years or so. Of course, in the last 65 million it's been the smaller ones that have survived, as a rule. They are still the dominant flying animals. A tremendously important and successful group, as I said.

---

It puts an entirely new slant on dinosaur shaped turkey bits.

---