Original Sin?

Page 4 of 369<1234567>Last »
March 10th, 2014 at 1:54:02 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 328
Posts: 11349
Quote: FrGamble
Why did this idea seem plausible back then but not today?


Thousands of years ago humans lived in tribes. tribes dominated the individuals making them up. Individualism as an idea didn't really exist. This carries over for a very long time, even unto ancient Greece and Rome. The city and the Republic adn the Empire may replace the tribe, but the effect si the same.

That's why it was reasonable, for example, to make responsibility and liability tribal as well. That's why it seems reasonable for a deity to promise vengeance unto the fourth generation, too, or to ascribe a sin to people who haven't even been born yet. Also why it was reasonable to punish a nation for the actions of one person.

from an individualist perspective, this is entirely irrational.

Western civilization has moved from tribalism to individualism. Some places mroe than others, of course.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 10th, 2014 at 2:03:13 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 145
Posts: 3174
Quote: FrGamble
The Apostle's Creed mentions, "He descended into Hell."


Then what is the difference between purgatory and hell?
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
March 10th, 2014 at 5:31:45 PM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Quote: FrGamble
Both in the OT and NT the serpent mentioned in Genesis is referred to as the devil. In Wisdom 2:24 and in Revelation 12:9 you can see examples of this.

Also I'm glad s2dbaker mentioned the verse in which the serpent is punished, Genesis 3:15, because it is often called the proto-Gospel where God puts enmity between the serpent's offspring and the woman's (Eve's) offspring and says that you (the devil) will strike at His (interpreted as referring to Christ) will strike at your head. Jews believed this as referencing Isaiah's suffering servant image of the Messiah, who Christians saw as Jesus. It predicts that evil will cause the suffering of one of Eve's descendants who through that suffering would finally deliver the fatal blow to the evil one.
Let's look at Genesis 3:14-15 shall we?
Quote: Bible
So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
He's not condemning a devil, He's condemning a talking serpent. If He were talking about a devil inside of a talking serpent then the bible would have made that clear. What it made perfectly clear was that God condemned a talking serpent putting the creature in the strata of livestock and wild animals, not angels and cherubim. Read your bible FrGamble. It's an amazing storybook and nothing more.
March 10th, 2014 at 6:23:26 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
You read your Bible s2dbaker like a fundamentalist. I'll go there with you in a second, but first I want to point out there are other ways to read Scripture like there are other ways to read the newspaper. You hopefully don't read the opinion section the same way you read the news. There are many different genres contained in the Bible and one of the keys of proper interpretation is recognize a type of genre and read it as the inspired author intended. It is much more than a storybook, it's a library. When you come across the poetry of the psalms, the fable-like story in Tobit, the apocalyptic literature in Revelation, we want to read and understand them according to their unique genre.

Anyway if we are going to take a literal read of Genesis 3:14 I think you don't have to say that the serpent is put in the strata of livestock or wild animals. The talking serpent is, "cursed above all livestock and all wild animals". Couldn't we read that to say that its curse is different because it is above the strata of livestock and wild animals, that it is in fact an different kind of "animal" all together?
March 10th, 2014 at 6:35:50 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: Wizard
Then what is the difference between purgatory and hell?


As I mentioned earlier purgatory is temporary and getting us ready for heaven. Hell on the other hand is a permanent destination where one is eternally separated from God.

I think you might be asking that if Jesus descended to hell and returned, bringing with him many just souls from all of history than wasn't hell more like purgatory, a temporary place that Christ freed many from? That is a good question and we might ask why didn't the Apostle's Creed say, "He descended into purgatory"?

The Catechism address this question in paragraph 633
Quote: Catechism of the Catholic Church
633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
March 10th, 2014 at 7:10:46 PM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Quote: FrGamble
You read your Bible s2dbaker like a fundamentalist. I'll go there with you in a second, but first I want to point out there are other ways to read Scripture like there are other ways to read the newspaper. You hopefully don't read the opinion section the same way you read the news. There are many different genres contained in the Bible and one of the keys of proper interpretation is recognize a type of genre and read it as the inspired author intended. It is much more than a storybook, it's a library. When you come across the poetry of the psalms, the fable-like story in Tobit, the apocalyptic literature in Revelation, we want to read and understand them according to their unique genre.
Poppycock! If you start adding words to the bible that aren't there then you're just rewriting the books as you want them to be, not as they are. What's to prevent you from putting all sorts of crazy ideas in there and then insisting that the bible didn't say it but it meant it.
Quote: FrGamble
Anyway if we are going to take a literal read of Genesis 3:14 I think you don't have to say that the serpent is put in the strata of livestock or wild animals. The talking serpent is, "cursed above all livestock and all wild animals". Couldn't we read that to say that its curse is different because it is above the strata of livestock and wild animals, that it is in fact an different kind of "animal" all together?
No, because the passage actually mentions livestock and animals meaning that is where the talkative serpent comes from and where it belongs. It is the talking serpent's egregious sin that makes it cursed above its peers. The bible says it that way for a reason and the reason is because that is exactly what the author meant.
March 10th, 2014 at 8:11:29 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 45
Posts: 5191
Quote: s2dbaker
Poppycock! If you start adding words to the bible that aren't there then you're just rewriting the books as you want them to be, not as they are. What's to prevent you from putting all sorts of crazy ideas in there and then insisting that the bible didn't say it but it meant it


Ah ha! You make a good point. You are correct, to avoid us putting all sorts of crazy ideas in there we need more than just the knowledge that there are different genres in the Bible and different ways to interpret them. You also need to look at tradition, the very same tradition that brought the Bible into being. Remember that the Bible did not fall from the sky it was put together over time first by faithful Rabbis and Jewish scholars and then the New Testament by the Church (everybody was Catholic at that time). These sources and traditional ways of looking at what the text means can be very helpful in understanding the Scriptures. The Church who put the Bible together also claims some authority over its interpretation. Why not ask the ones who put the Bible together what it means, that should carry some weight I think. Finally, lets not forget about other texts in the Bible itself I mentioned already looking at Wisdom 2:24 or Revelation 12:9.

It seems to me that the only way you can stop people from interpreting all kinds of poppycock from the Bible is to look at texts not just literally, but taking into consideration the genre, also what ancient Tradition says about a text, and how the Magisterium of the Church looks at it, and what other texts in the Bible might have to say. This is not to mention a look at the original Hebrew or Greek. All this together gives us a more authentic interpretation than what a fundamentalist would give us.


Quote: s2dbaker
No, because the passage actually mentions livestock and animals meaning that is where the talkative serpent comes from and where it belongs. It is the talking serpent's egregious sin that makes it cursed above its peers. The bible says it that way for a reason and the reason is because that is exactly what the author meant.


You seem very sure about this, have you checked with the other sources listed above? I also still think you are making a jump from the literal text to say that the serpent is without a doubt referred to as livestock or an animal, just because livestock and wild animals are mentioned in the verse. Could the mention of other animals be to contrast the talking serpent and his unique punishment over and above the regular animals?
March 11th, 2014 at 12:24:53 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 110
Posts: 11597
Quote: FrGamble
Why did this idea seem plausible back then but not today? What is so far fetched or ludicrous about being tested?


You're testing yourself, padre. The universe is ignorant
and oblivious to your plight. Our ego's run our lives,
telling us were special in the eyes of god. But so is my
dog and my cats and all the fishes in the ocean. Which
means none of is special, we're all in the same boat.

Why would you want it any other way. Seriously, why.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
March 11th, 2014 at 1:06:12 AM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 145
Posts: 3174
Quote: s2dbaker
Poppycock!


Taking back to a priest?! I can just picture the purgatory meter spinning.

Still hoping to get an answer to my last question.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
March 11th, 2014 at 1:19:45 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 735
Posts: 8571
Quote: Wizard
Then what is the difference between purgatory and hell?


No one in Purgatory will remain forever in that state or go to hell. If you go to purgatory you always end up in heaven eventually.
Page 4 of 369<1234567>Last »