Original Sin?

Quote: Dalex64

At the time the book of Romans was written, what parts of the bible were believed to be literal truth, and which was believed to be an allegory?

This would end up being a Biblical theology course, which I could not teach and would not fit on this forum.

Quote:

With our understanding of the world now, which parts of the story of Genesis are literal truth, and which parts are allegory?

I think you need to become comfortable with the answer that in Genesis there are historical literal truths interwoven in parables and myth. For example God created the world out of nothing, but neither of the two creation stories are a literal blow by blow account of creation. Human beings are unique in all of God's creation but all the animals of the world were not paraded before Adam to receive their names. Adam and Even are real people who are our first parents, but was Adam created from the dust or the process of evolution? There was a fall, a disobedience of God, was it eating an apple from a certain tree?

Quote:

What justification was there then to believe the stories were literal truth, and what justification do you have now for labeling parts of the story as allegory and parts of it as factual?

Some of this involves Biblical studies and the idea of the Holy Spirit's inspiration continuing through the Magisterium of the Church. Other parts of this answer will involve modern cosmology and modern genetics showing that both our universe had a beginning and that the human race has a common ancestor.

Quote:

If there was an Adam and Eve, did they really do the things that are attributed to them in Genesis?

Yes, they disobeyed God and desired to become like God themselves. They desired to determine based on their own what was good and bad depending on their own selfish desires and wants. This is still today the root problem of all the disorder, violence, immorality, and destruction in the world. Do you doubt this?

Quote:

Which parts of the story of Genesis are literal truth, and which parts are allegory?

Again this is a bigger answer than we have space for, but I hope the above helps you.

Quote: Face

Basic genetics. Though the Adam/Eve myth would sure explain most Walmart shoppers =p

Maybe humanity is so screwed up because the kind, loving Jehovah made us inbred? :D

Quote:

It's been eye opening, though, this thread's recent turn. It's basically the Miracle on Ice. That was nothing more than another in a long line of underdog vs superstar stories.

Good point. if we're going to label every small group who wins big a miracle, then we must add Rome, a tiny band of sheep herders and outlaws who had to kidnap women in order to procreate, surrounded by strong enemies like Etruria, other Latin tribes and a bunch of Greek colonies. Or the crocodile god Sobek in Egypt, people worshipped him for over 4,000 years! Or that kid Alexander who conquered the mighty Persians, plus Egypt and everything else between Mesopotamia and India. Or a bunch of colonials in the New World who beat the most powerful empire on Earth at the time.

Quote: Face

Rasputin was resurrected like 4 different times. Why no big to-do over him?

That is a very good question. Why in all these supposed cases nothing comes of it, yet in the case of Jesus Christ we find ourselves dating our years around His birth?

Quote:

Basic genetics. Though the Adam/Eve myth would sure explain most Walmart shoppers =p

Good one. The Scriptures is pretty clear that Adam and Even had many sons and daughters, be fertile and multiply after all. As basic genetics teach us the reason why it is such awful things happen when close relatives marry each other today is because the defects in their genes are very similar causing a greater chance for such defects to materialize. The chances are better when you get outside of your immediate family that such defects are not shared and won't cause harm. These defects take a long time to mutate, change, or develop. Early on, in fact at the very beginning Adam and Eve's genes were perfect. As sin entered into the world and deterioration began it took some time before it became dangerous and unnecessary to marry within the family. The original situation of marrying in the family was out of necessity so that there could be successive generations.

Quote:

I've been in games even more amazing than this Miracle; I just didn't have the story. Why is Miracle such a "thing"? Because the observers made it so.

That's just it. What observers or powers were there or wanted to promote the Jesus story. It would be as if your little local hockey game did become known as the greatest game ever played by which all other hockey games were known. What would happen if your band of teammates gave up everything in their lives after this game and dedicated themselves full time and untiring to spreading the word about this epic game you played. Probably still nothing. Yet somehow this group of ragtag former fishermen, zealots, former tax collectors, and women spread the word and even with all the other stories and persecutions and death and powers that be fighting against it - it became the greatest story ever told!

I admit it. I peek from time to time.

Quote: FrGamble

Early on, in fact at the very beginning Adam and Eve's genes were perfect.

That is the stupidest, most ignorant statement about genetics that I've ever heard. Considering genetics is probably the most misunderstood area of biology, that's saying something.

Recessive genes are not something exclusive to humanity. They are found in every species. And they don't change necessarily when one species evolves into another. So the first H. sapiens, however many there were (much more than 2), already carried a plethora of recessive genes from their immediate ancestors.

Nor are recessive genes necessarily harmful. And many that are may persist because the confer a benefit in exchange (look up hemochromatosis).

In order to believe this complete load of, you know, one would have to completely ignore everything we know about genetics and evolution. Seriously, brother Mendel must be spinning in his grave.

I did not say peeking was a good idea.

It is clear to me that the chuch believes what it chooses to believe.

The very first book of the bible - was once believed to be the literal truth. Every word of it. When it became clear that it could not be, they chose from it what was a story, and what really happened. This they believe because they believe that their thoughts and decisions are guided by god. They know this because they say so, and them saying so was guided by god.

So with a straight face I am told that part of the first book is a story, but part of it is real, and they know which is which. Of course, which is which has changed over time.

Incredulous only begins to describe how I feel.

To a specific point - a common ancestor - of course we had a common ancestor or ancestors. That in no way proves that they were two individuals named Adam and Eve.

It is completely ludicrous to look at the first book of the bible and pick and choose your facts from it.

How can you say that the bible does not describe in a factual way how the world was created, and turn right around and say it does factually describe the story of two people and their betrayal of god?

It...makes...no...sense.

I think you are grasping at what is called the development of doctrine. A deepening understanding of the Word of God is always taking place. As we grow in our understanding of the natural world isn't it pretty obvious that our understanding of Genesis would develop. The only alarming thing that could happen is if in our developing understanding of science we would find things contrary to true meaning of Scripture. It seems that the more science discovers about the beginning of our universe, the common ancestor of all humans, etc. the fundamental teachings of Genesis taught through mythical stories remains.

I'm not picking and choosing facts, I think we are both trying to distill the fundamental truths that Genesis wants to teach us. Remember we are not talking about a scientific textbook here, but rather a book of faith.

Quote:

How can you say that the bible does not describe in a factual way how the world was created, and turn right around and say it does factually describe the story of two people and their betrayal of god?

I didn't mean to say that either story in Genesis is a blow by blow factual account of what happened. Yet the reality is there is creation and human struggles with sin. These two things came to be one by God and the other through our betrayal. The details of which might end up not being as important as understanding the reality of the situation.

You just said "it's ok if it ends up being not true"

Church doctrine is based on these stories, which were thought to be true. If the stories aren't true, what foundation does the doctrine stand on? The details are critically important. The resurrection of christ is one such critical detail that you aren't backing away from.

What I see happening here is the stories are being bent to fit the facts, and facts are being bent to fit the stories.

You can't say that the bible isn't a scientific text on one hand when I complain that it lacks the truth, and on the other hand tell me that the bible tells you the truth.

If snakes don't slither on the ground because they decieved Adam and Eve, then there was no betrayal and no factual basis for original sin.

I think the fossil record has taught us about the evolution of snakes. They predate man. They slithered then. How does this not chip away at the truth of the scripture?

Quote: Nareed

Maybe humanity is so screwed up because the kind, loving Jehovah made us inbred? :D

See, that's the logical interpretation, and I don't get how the religious gloss over such things. Though I suppose it does make sense - God created us in His image, so therefore we were pretty great. Then the whole inbreeding thing dropped us from greatness and we're all just a bunch of idiots now. It kind of fits the whole story of us being born already damaged and needing to aspire to return to our god-like true form. But then you toss in God's infallibility in conjunction with His loving kindness, and He could not have possibly created us with this weakness to incest. Yet He did. But He couldn't. But here we are...

God works in mysterious ways ;)

Quote: Nareed

Good point. if we're going to label every small group who wins big a miracle, then we must add Rome, a tiny band of sheep herders and outlaws who had to kidnap women in order to procreate, surrounded by strong enemies like Etruria, other Latin tribes and a bunch of Greek colonies. Or the crocodile god Sobek in Egypt, people worshipped him for over 4,000 years! Or that kid Alexander who conquered the mighty Persians, plus Egypt and everything else between Mesopotamia and India. Or a bunch of colonials in the New World who beat the most powerful empire on Earth at the time.

Exactly. It again makes me wonder why we're discussing Catholicism. Nearly everything it claims has been done before. Virgin birth, resurrection, creation, all been done before. It even in its assimilation of other beliefs still wears their mark. Easter eggs and yule logs and all the rest. I look and I laugh. Others seem to take this seriously. I'm still trying to figure that out.

Quote: FrGamble

That's just it. What observers or powers were there or wanted to promote the Jesus story. It would be as if your little local hockey game did become known as the greatest game ever played by which all other hockey games were known. What would happen if your band of teammates gave up everything in their lives after this game and dedicated themselves full time and untiring to spreading the word about this epic game you played. Probably still nothing. Yet somehow this group of ragtag former fishermen, zealots, former tax collectors, and women spread the word and even with all the other stories and persecutions and death and powers that be fighting against it - it became the greatest story ever told!

I must assume you are not active on social media. In case you haven't noticed, a majority, I'd almost say a vast majority, of people (at least Americans) are one bad meal away from being actually retarded. And I need no more proof than Facebook.

How many have seen a meme ending in "I bet (some random percent of people) won't repost this"? This is a post by a retard, for retards. And yes, I'm using a slur offensively, so I'll stop that now. But people in general aren't savvy. They don't fact check, or even think. They just go with. It's called group-think.

Or how about "Facebook will donate $XX for every share of this post"? No the f#$% they won't. You're an idiot, and a gullible one at that. But that's what people do and are. If a monkey cracks a nut with a rock, every other monkey in that pride will crack nuts with rocks too. We're social animals, that's how it works.

Jesus might very well be the first viral post. You know how many buckets of cold water I've had dumped on me in the shower? Know how many I've dumped on others? The numbers of buckets on heads dumped on people since the invention of the shower has to be in the millions, and no one knows, and no one cares. But something about the whole ALS Ice Bucket Challenge worked. A mix of connectivity, group-think, and desire to fit in, and boom. It was a "thing". There are a hundred examples you can think of right now. Flag pole sitting, car stuffing, beanie babies, cinnamon challenges, planking... you can think of a hundred things just like these that didn't take off, yet these ones did. Why?

It is not hard for me at all to envision a similar thing happening with Jesus. I mean, I think he lived and was real. I think he was a hell of a philosopher and philanthropist. I think he was a Big Deal. So a Big Deal is killed, but was only "mostly dead" (and we all know that "mostly dead" is "partly alive") So like so many others before and after him, he recovers and leaves. A Big Deal being "killed" and then living? That's a huge story. Hell, that's why I even knew of Rasputin, because he did the same thing (like 4 times) and it was a huge story. Wanna see how huge? Go down to Barbados and bring back Tupac. The Nation will lose its collective s#$% right in front of your eyes.

As for the whole "lasted for XXXX years", that means very, very little. I honestly wonder why you use that so often. Many of the Eastern religions are well over 5,000 years old. The Seneca creation myth is still kicking around, and get this, it survived with no written records whatsoever! All the stuff you have ever heard me say about it came by way of word of mouth beginning thousands and thousands of years ago. Now THAT is staying power. Yet it holds no sway with you, at least in their cases.

I dunno. No clean ending to this post.

Quote: Dalex64

The very first book of the bible - was once believed to be the literal truth. Every word of it.

That's normal. In ancient times all stories were believed to be true. The Greeks began all recitations of epic poems, like the Iliad, by invoking a muse to inspire the poet. That's divine revelation right there, and ipso facto The Truth. And this, mind, for stories told as entertainment.

Now, no myths were regarded as mythic in their time. This is not to say everyone believed every myth, but all myths were believed by some.

Quote:

To a specific point - a common ancestor - of course we had a common ancestor or ancestors. That in no way proves that they were two individuals named Adam and Eve.

AncestorS, absolutely. How many, we can't tell. But if you go as far back as evolutionary knowledge allows, you can get an idea of how many different species were our ancestors. To think this culminated in two "perfect" Homo sapiens, whatever their names, one male and one female, without a single recessive gene between the two of them, takes things waaaaaay too far.

And the only difference between the myths from the Bible and other myths is that the Bible's are the ones a lot of people believe to be true.

Quote: Face

See, that's the logical interpretation, and I don't get how the religious gloss over such things.

Did you not see the post I so unwisely peeked at?

The, too, incest was common between gods. Maybe Jehovah liked it. after all, in the New testament myth, he impregnates his mother with himself. It doesn't get more incestuous for a man to be his own father.

Quote:

Exactly. It again makes me wonder why we're discussing Catholicism. Nearly everything it claims has been done before. Virgin birth, resurrection, creation, all been done before. It even in its assimilation of other beliefs still wears their mark. Easter eggs and yule logs and all the rest. I look and I laugh. Others seem to take this seriously. I'm still trying to figure that out.

You left out polytheism.

Humans are lousy at monotheism. that's why I think there are so few Jews. Now, quite frankly I fail to see why Christians insisted on monotheism, when even their central deity is not a single god, but three gods. I wonder just how quickly, and eagerly, the cult of the saints was adopted.

Quote:

I must assume you are not active on social media. In case you haven't noticed, a majority, I'd almost say a vast majority, of people (at least Americans) are one bad meal away from being actually retarded. And I need no more proof than Facebook.

I don't think there's a limit to what people will believe. Simply look at conspiracy theories. Each one, regardless of how outrageous or how against the facts it goes, gathers at least some believers, who believe in their conspiracy with religious zeal. I'm not saying the Bible is a conspiracy theory, but rather that conspiracy theories are myths like the Bible or the Iliad.

More to follow