Consequences Of The Fall

[Sojourner]

Physical death -- is that a result of a change in physical world at the time of the fall? If so, what changed?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1298501' date='Jun 19 2007, 01:10 PM']Physical death -- is that a result of a change in physical world at the time of the fall? If so, what changed?[/quote]

I believe that creation was "broken" as a result of the Fall, with many deleterious effects, including death, disease, and mosquitoes. I mean, c'mon, is there any good reason for mosquitoes?

[i] 19
For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;
20
for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope
21
that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.[/i]

Rom. 8:19-22

[Sojourner]

Right, it's obvious that something was broken, and that death entered the world where previously it did not exist.

However, there's no mention that God created things like bacteria and mosquitoes as curses to humanity as a result of the fall.

I know that we belive man lost supernatural gracing as a result of a fall. Could it be that this supernatural gracing was also part of the physical world, giving it a higher level of order and purpose, and that gracing was lost as a result of the fall thereby resulting in a distortion of purpose for things like bacteria and mosquitoes?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1298526' date='Jun 19 2007, 01:47 PM']Right, it's obvious that something was broken, and that death entered the world where previously it did not exist.

However, there's no mention that God created things like bacteria and mosquitoes as curses to humanity as a result of the fall.

I know that we belive man lost supernatural gracing as a result of a fall. Could it be that this supernatural gracing was also part of the physical world, giving it a higher level of order and purpose, and that gracing was lost as a result of the fall thereby resulting in a distortion of purpose for things like bacteria and mosquitoes?[/quote]

At this point, based on what I know, I can only speculate. I believe that humanity and creation were / are somehow inextricably linked insofar as humanity was given "dominion" over nature. Creation was created for humanity, with the intention that humanity would act in a "caretaker" capacity. Somehow, there is an inextricable link between humanity and creation. The effects of the Fall on creation are clear for all to see.

As for disease, mosquitoes, etc., there is no other source for their being than God, i.e. they cannot ever have existed, even in their present form, apart from having been created by God. I can only assume that organisms that today are malignant had in their original conception some benign purpose, and will have again.

The likes of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien deal with nature much better than I could ever hope to. See in particular "The Space Trilogy" by Lewis.

[kateri05]

we not only lost the sanctifying grace but also the preternatural graces, which included immortality.

Other preternatural gifts which will be restored at the Final Judgement are impassibility, clarity, and.... something else. i forget

[url="http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01603.htm"]here's a cool website explaining more[/url]

Edited June 20, 2007 by kateri05

[The Joey-O]

So, we lost immortality before or after we evolved from monkeys?

[kateri05]

that would have to be a big..... NEGATIVE


as my high school biology teacher said. you can believe what you want, but i did NOT come from no monkies


nuff said

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1299305' date='Jun 21 2007, 12:32 AM']that would have to be a big..... NEGATIVE
as my high school biology teacher said. you can believe what you want, but i did NOT come from no monkies
nuff said [/quote]

Here's my problem with this whole thing:

1. I can see why people, often called fundamentalists, reject concepts of MACRO-evolution. I've heard the arguments from genetics, astrophysics, even geology. I beleive there's enough questions regarding this theory and the "old-earth" theory to keep it a theory.

2. However, I also understand that the evidence is pretty one-sided. The evidence indicates MACRO-evolution is the best explanation for the available data. Yes, there are some problems with the theories listed above, but there's problems with EVERY theory and most laws that exist in biology and physics. There are no "hard" sciences.

3. There is a sort of unwritten law in the academic community: You don't disagree with the scientific consensus, if it is outside of your field. Why? Because it makes you look like a fool. The only time you can disagree with a consensus is if you work in the field and have devoted your life to the study. Otherwise, you don't know a tenth of a percent that the people in the field know.

4. If you believe in MACRO-evolution and an old earth, then the only penalty for sin that is viable is seperation from God. In these theories, death, cancer, thistles, work, etc. all exist prior to Man (and therefore the Fall of Man) existing. I feel that admitting these realities really does a hard blow to Christian theology.

[kateri05]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1299809' date='Jun 22 2007, 08:21 AM']In these theories, death, cancer, thistles, work, etc. all exist prior to Man (and therefore the Fall of Man) existing. I feel that admitting these realities really does a hard blow to Christian theology.[/quote]


well you can't believe that. its against the teaching of the Church. well i don't know about thistles , but the Catechism definitely talks about how the Fall is a real event, Adam and Eve were the first two real people and death, cancer, suffering, etc. are an actual, real consequence OF the Fall. they also discuss how we have two parents and through them this personal sin is transmitted to the human nature through the propagation of the race.

two individuals: CCC 355-384

realities of original sin: CCC 385-421


this is true, and unshakable theology of the Church. science needs to explain in the context of this reality. thus, i honestly don't see how macro evolution is even possible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I deny the existence of thistles. The Bible says that creation is good, but clearly thistles are bad, therefore thistles cannot exist.

Now if only I could find a solution to the problem of work...

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1299886' date='Jun 22 2007, 02:34 PM']well you can't believe that. its against the teaching of the Church. well i don't know about thistles , but the Catechism definitely talks about how the Fall is a real event, Adam and Eve were the first two real people and death, cancer, suffering, etc. are an actual, real consequence OF the Fall. they also discuss how we have two parents and through them this personal sin is transmitted to the human nature through the propagation of the race.

two individuals: CCC 355-384

realities of original sin: CCC 385-421
this is true, and unshakable theology of the Church. science needs to explain in the context of this reality. thus, i honestly don't see how macro evolution is even possible.[/quote]

Before I say this, I want to say that I want there to be an alternative explanation. However, I do not know one.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I believe that the Fall actually occured and that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Christians who believe in macro-evolution usually believe this as well. The problem, as I see it, lies in what you have to concede when you choose to accept or reject the theory of macro-evolution.

Here's the theological problem, as I see it:

1) If you accept the theory of macro-evolution, you have to say that there was death, disease, cancer, etc. before the Fall. This is a problem, because death is supposed to be a result of our Fall. Thus, if you want to say that Christ wanted to restore us to our state prior to the Fall, he would have no need to die. Afterall, we died in "paradise". This is not something that we want to say about atonement.

2)If you reject the theory of macro-evolution, you have to say one of the following things: a) that we have no natural, reliable means of coming to understand truth. One would argue here, that Special Revelation is our only reliable means of discerning truth. OR b) that there are (at least) two truths. There is one truth of relgion and one truth of science. They must be held in "tension" as both are true. The problem with "a" is that this flies in the face of long-standing Catholic teaching on Natural Revelation. The problem with "b" is philosophical. There cannot be 2 truths, it's an impossiblity.

There are explanations that I've heard that get around these. None have been satisfactory. They all tend to lean into the problems of "1" or the problems of "2".

[kateri05]

doesn't this then lead to the logical conclusion that macroevolution isn't possible? cuz that's what it looks like to me!

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1300097' date='Jun 23 2007, 12:50 AM']doesn't this then lead to the logical conclusion that macroevolution isn't possible? cuz that's what it looks like to me! [/quote]

That would take option "2a", as I stated above.

[quote]If you reject the theory of macro-evolution, you have to say one of the following things: a) that we have no natural, reliable means of coming to understand truth. One would argue here, that Special Revelation is our only reliable means of discerning truth...The problem with "a" is that this flies in the face of long-standing Catholic teaching on Natural Revelation.[/quote]

You see, Catholics believe that we can trust human reason, especially when frequently tested and scrutinized. That is why the Catholic Church was able to incorporate the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. into Church teaching. What they said was correct (for the most part), because it utilized human reason and empiracal data. Over time, we were able to analyze those parts of their teachings that weren't correct. However, we did so in a way that did justice to the work and thought put into the development of the philosophy. In other words, the Church is always insisted on having it both ways. Special Revelation doesn't get removed or distorted by the sciences (including philosophy), neither does the Natural Revelation get distorted or removed by theology. God's Truth is one Truth. In the past, when we discovered a truth through Natural Revelation that appears to be contradictory to Special Revelation, or vice versa, we always insisted that both were true and found the language to make both true. For example, during the Christological contraversies in the third and fourth centuries, Christianity greatly contributed to the science of philosophy by inventing whole new ways to describe the nature persons. Without these advances in philosophy, we would've had no intelligable way to describe how Christ can be both fully Man and fully God.

So, I'll say again, we're left in a tough situation. I beleive that there's a way out. I just don't know what it is.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1300097' date='Jun 22 2007, 11:50 PM']doesn't this then lead to the logical conclusion that macroevolution isn't possible? cuz that's what it looks like to me! [/quote]

This is getting into "the Sun revolves around the Earth" territory. You can't simply say, this "makes waves" vis-a-vis my religious beliefs, therefore it can't be true. Scientific evidence points to an Earth billions of years old, with a fossil record of life billions of years old. We have to deal with that, not pretend that it doesn't [i]really[/i] say that or that it simply isn't true.

[kateri05]

[quote]This is getting into "the Sun revolves around the Earth" territory. You can't simply say, this "makes waves" vis-a-vis my religious beliefs, therefore it can't be true. Scientific evidence points to an Earth billions of years old, with a fossil record of life billions of years old. We have to deal with that, not pretend that it doesn't really say that or that it simply isn't true.[/quote]

there is a large difference between an old earth and monkeys=people. large.