4 Answers

  1. I have already said here that we should not forget the main point: the history of the creation of the world and the fall, like many other events from the Old Testament, cannot be considered literally. The creation of man (Heb. adam) meant not just the first human individual, but all of humanity. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Adam is not a proper name, but the name of “all-man”. Tertullian and St. Augustine expressed similar views. According to exegetes, the name Eve comes from the verb ” to live “(Eve-to live: Havva-hayah), this name emphasizes the blood relationship of the human race.

    In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read: “In the Holy Scriptures, God speaks to man as men speak. In order to discover the intentions of sacred writers, it is necessary to take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the “literary genres” that existed in that era, and the ways of perception, expression, and narration that were contemporary to them” (KCC, 109-110). In addition: “According to the ancient tradition, two meanings of Scripture can be distinguished: literal and spiritual, and the latter is divided into allegorical, moral and anagogic (hidden). The deep alignment of these four meanings provides the living reading of Scripture in the Church with all its richness ” (KCC, 115). And again:” The story of the fall (Gen. 3) uses figurative language, but tells the primary event, a fact that took place at the very beginning of human history ” (KCC, 390). That is, there was a fact of the fall, but whether it was a specific person or a community of the first people, it is difficult to say definitely if you do not have a theological education (and if you have a habit of questioning everything and looking for strong evidence, and this education will not help). And once there was a fact of original sin, it was not in vain.

    In short, when reading the Bible, you need to have at hand ” Church-approved interpretations/commentaries – theologians have discussed them for centuries, created scientific schools, different approaches, and all positions were verified over many years. And the texts of scientific research also do not hurt – for the sake of completeness, at least.

    Vatican radio saidthat the theory of evolution does not contradict Christianity and references in this Encyclical of Pope Pius XII “Humani generis” (1950). �However, I have not found in the text of the Encyclical of direct approval, everything is very�vaguely due to lack of evidence�both positions (the evolution is not fully proven (M. B., in 1950 it was), and faith is faith).

    Be that as it may, in 1996 Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, stated that Darwin's theory can be quite consistent with Scripture: “There is no contradiction between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation, provided that we observe certain provisions” (for example, the recognition that at the time of the appearance of man with an immaterial soul, there was a direct intervention of God, Who created the soul of man).�

    According to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, in 2009 the theory of evolution was publicly recognized by Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the”Minister of Culture” of the Catholic Church (President of the Pontifical Council for Culture). This is confirmed by The Times.

    And the absence of contradictions between faith and reason, the importance of the relationship between science and religion in 1998 was more than officially stated by John Paul II in an encyclicalFides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), which was written for him by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI.

    (A couple of years ago, the media was full of news that Francis recognized Darwin's theory. This funny story was perfectly dissected by a French journalist.)

  2. “Stories from the Book of Genesis -” this is not a story, but a cosmogony veiled under an allegory. The literal perception of the Bible makes it a book of fairy tales and statements devoid of elementary logic. Example: ( Genesis 1/26)… And God said, Let us make man in our image ,after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”.. Now, chapter two (Genesis 2/7) – … “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2/19)… The Lord God formed out of the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and that whatever the man called every living soul, that was its name.”

    So what do we have? In the first chapter, man is created last ( after the creation of animals and birds). In the second, on the contrary-first ( verse 7) and only then the animal kingdom ( verse 19).

    As we can see in the two chapters of Genesis, there are completely different creations. And the first is in the likeness, and the second is simply made of the dust of the earth. All this is an allegory, which is the biser who was trampled on by the official church.

    Indeed, the concept of “original sin” is a much later invention of the Church. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was planted specifically for man, so that at the cost of suffering and experience he could rise to the man of heaven. If he remained pure in spirit in the Garden of Eden, he would be like a sinless human vegetable-a suckling infant who knows no peace. To become god ( and he was created in the likeness of the Father, that is, with all the capabilities of the Father), he had to pass through fire and copper pipes and sculpt himself. This approach is worthy of a son of God, not a slave.

  3. Concerning sin. The pleasure mechanism evolved to tell the body what to do in order to spread and develop its species. Accordingly, a sin (flaw)- this is the receipt of pleasure bypassing the useful actions for which this mechanism was created.

    That is, in fact, sin is a hacking of the pleasure mechanism by overly intelligent patients as a result of “knowing good and evil.” This is the fall, so in fact the idea of it is not wrong.

    As for the sacrifice of Christ, this is an example of altruism, when a person at the cost of his life drew people's attention to the ancient wisdom recorded in books, which taught about the inadmissibility of sin, and the need for selfless work for the benefit of society, even in spite of rational egoism. I think this also does not completely lose its meaning, as can be seen in the example of the samePrisoner's dilemmas, which I asked a question about here:

    TheQuestion: we will find those who will answer your questions.

  4. I, as an adherent of evolution, think that they do not lose 🙂 �

    Religion is such a thing that any statements can be interpreted as you like. All these ecumenical councils – they were needed precisely for the interpretation of scripture. Omitting the topic of the necessity of faith and the reliability of all these religious texts, we can look at the problem of religion in a scientific context. The problem is that religion first makes a statement (scripture), and then adjusts the facts to fit it. As demonstrated by IV IVAN RENARD above:) �

    The fact is that in science this does not work out. In science, the course is reversed-like in a detective's investigation. First, we look at the facts, analyze them, and put forward hypotheses. Then we test these hypotheses from all sides, conduct experiments. We identify a theory (=a big teaching), like the theory of gravitation.�

    We see religion losing ground further and further. In the beginning, they pecked at a lot of scientists, burned some at the stake, put some in prison, and denigrated others. In the beginning, they found thousands of proofs that the earth is flat. Now they have retreated so much that they allow for the possibility of evolution 🙂 The last outpost of theologians for a long time will remain the emergence of life on earth. Because honestly, science needs to find any other life and analyze it in order to understand the similarity or difference with earth, and therefore to deduce patterns. And that may never happen.�

    Religion will prove anything with hundreds of commentaries and obscure phrases from ancient books. Therefore, the presence or absence of Adam has absolutely no effect on the concept of original sin. If desired, this can be launched into the sphere of symbolism, and there everyone understands how they want.

Leave a Reply