A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
228

Angels are important in faiths like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and also in others. Therefore I propose you to take account of this state of affairs in your picture.

First of all let me say that my understanding of both God and humanity is based on the fact that God created humans (male and female) in God’s own Image, and also that Jesus Christ is Very Human of Very Human and Very God of Very God.

This means to me that God is Personal. in that humans are personal being, and God as YHWH in the OT, God the Father in the NT, and Jesus Christ are all Persons in the current meani8ng of that term. Also that humans have the ability to create through their bodies, to think through their minds, and love through their spirits, while God the Father has the power to create as the Creator, God the Son has the power to think as the Logos, and God the Spirit has the power to love as the character of God.

You say that God created angels as purely spiritual beings, who have free will. I question the re3ality of angels and say that they do not have free will as portrayed in the Bible. The Bible indicates that some angels rebelled against God, so this would seem to indicate that they have free will, but it also says that these fallen angels cannot repent and be saved by Jesus so how can we say that they have free will.

If angels are purely spiritual beings as you say, how can they think and how can they act? If angels are created beings, then why do they not die? If God created beings who had free will, then why did God create human beings who also had free will, but were mortal?

Angels are not essential to God. It appears to me that they evolved from the sons of God (Elohim) to agents of YHWH. As I said they are needed in Judaism and Islam where God is One and angels serve as a buffer between Elohim and Allah.

In other words in a complex world angels serve as mediators between the One and the many. For Christians Jesus and the Spirit serve as mediator and conduit between the Father and humans. There is no theological need for angels, because Jesus Christ is God with us and God for us.

In particular, regarding the Christian teaching about Trinity, it is important to distinguish between the “Many” as referring to the three divine Persons (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit), and the “Many” as referring to the multiplicity of beings outside God, in particular angels.

Humans are complex/one beings, who live in a complex/one world, and need a Complex/One God. Angels began as false gods, but became agents of God. They can be seen as the complex aspect of YHWH and Allah.

I recently read that theologians insist that the Christian Trinitarian God is Simple and not Complex. This has to be the result of the influence of Greek philosophy that insists that Being is Simple and not NT theology. Again YHWH, the Father, and Jesus Christ are not simple Beings.

God is One, but God is not Simple. God cannot be less than humans. God cannot be less than angels.

2 Likes
229

You propose two “different” interpretations of “Original Sin”:

and

I don’t see any difference between these two interpretations.
In both cases “Original Sin” consists basically in the rejection of God’s will.

230

Antoine, you apparently did not notice the highlighting I gave in the two passages that emphasize the difference. From Genesis 2&3 we see that God created A&E with full understanding of God’s will. And they rebelled against it. The scenario that I feel fits better with science is that the ‘programming’ of Homo sapiens brain that resulted in them acquiring a Mind and conscience did NOT impart an immediate understanding of God’s will, but rather the potential to learn what that might be. The old Baltimore Catechism spelled out the foundation of God’s intention for me: “God made me to KNOW him….” As I matured and learned that nothing we know of in the entire Universe has a mind that can comprehend its Creator, our conscience should be a guide showing us the way to rise above our evolved animal natures which tend to be selfish and power loving, and become unique in the Universe in (at least partially) becoming an Image Bearer. Evolutionary science shows us that humans were NOT image bearers from the very beginning. When we have learned this, and yet choose to seek those selfish pleasures, we sin.
Al Leo

231

Roger, this expresses concisely how I see the wondrous Gift we have received from our Creator. How you amplify it in philosophical/theological terminology seems overly complex to me, which is not surprising, since my field is physical organic chemistry. So the Ph in my degree does not make me a philosopher in the true meaning of the word.
Al Leo

232

The moment when Homo sapiens creatures learned this, is precisely the moment referred to in Genesis 1: 26-28; 2:15-25, at which God created Adam&Eve, and bestowed them with His wondrous gift, that is:

And yet humans chose to refuse God’s love and sinned:

This is the moment of “Original Sin” magnificently described in Genesis 3: Sin happens for the first time in human history.

I dare to insist: it seems to me that your interpretation of “Original Sin” fits perfectly well with the Genesis narrative and also my interpretation.

233

Roger

I like many of your claims in this post regarding God as a unity of three personal relations: Fatherhood, Sonhood and Love.

You address a number of interesting queries regarding angels, which are worthy to be further discussed:

The fact that some angels rebelled against God whereas most of them accepted to worship him, is a clear sign that angels have free will.

On the one hand we know that God is keen to redeem sinners to the end of incarnating Himself and dying on the cross. On the other hand we know that He is almighty. So your question is quite pertinent: Why then did God not foresee Redemption for the fallen angels?

The only possible answer seems to be that angels reject to be saved so that God would have to violate their free will in order to save them. But God cannot do such a violation because it would mean that God contradicts himself, what is absurd.

This point can be better understood through a comparison with “opiate addiction”: The more consumption, the more difficult to overcome the addiction. The reason is that the addict makes himself a wrong idea about how to reach happiness and adheres more and more to it, till at the end it clings immovably to it.

Sinning is sort of addiction: The more someone sins, the more he reinforces his own will in rejecting God, and the less is he willing to convert. For humans death is nothing other than the moment where the own will clings immovably forever to love God or reject Him.

Now angels are pure spirits and this means that an angel does not make up his mind in several successive steps but decides once and for all. If an angel rejects God he remains “addicted” to this decision forever.

God is also a pure spiritual being who thinks and act.
Humans themselves think and freely act because they are incarnate spirits. Angels are far more powerful in thinking and acting than we humans are.

Only incarnate spirits like humans can die: Angels have no body and therefore cannot die.

However there are also humans who did not die: Remember for instance Melchizedek!

Notice that spiritual beings cannot be annihilated: As well angels (pure spirits) as humans (incarnate spirits) have never ending existence.

Through creation God aims that a hug number of spiritual creatures reach happiness by freely sharing in His love.

The perfection of creation requires that God primarily created pure spirits (angels). Nonetheless a number of them sinned and let a number of places in “the kingdom of heaven” unoccupied. So God foresaw to create humans, that is, incarnate spirits living in time, who are called to fill the places in heaven that remained vacant because of the angel’s fall. Human history will go on till all the places in the “banquet of the kingdom of heaven” are filled.

Neither angels not humans are essential to God.

As discussed in the thread “My theory about the Flood”, in Scripture the term “sons of God” refers to creatures who were created by God independently of any creature’s will (i.e.: without parents). So the term may refer to angels, like in Job 1:6, but also to humans, like in Genesis 6:2-4. In the latter case God created these “sons of God” the same way He created Adam, that is, by transforming Homo sapiens individuals into humans endowed with free will and therefore capable of sinning.

Jesus Christ himself and the New Testament unambiguously speak about angels and Satan.

If you dispose of angels, you dispose of “Satan and his angels” as well.

234

@AntoineSuarez

Roger:

the ability to create through their bodies, to think through their minds, and love through their spirits

Antoine

And yet humans chose to refuse God’s love and sinned:

Does this mean that you agree with my threefold anthropology?

Sin is more than a refusal. It is the breaking of re4lationship.

235

@Relates

Roger, this may be noteworthy! This is the first time I can think of where you and I are in sync about interpreting the more mystic side of the Bible!

236

YES I completely agree with it.

This is an excellent definition of sin!

It is the definition proposed by Joseph Ratzinger (today emeritus Pope Benedict XVI) as well: “Sin is relational damage”.

I like very much this definition because it makes clear that sinning means freely choosing:

  • to remain alone forever,
  • i.e.: to be unknown to God,
  • i.e.: to have no name forever,
  • i.e.: to be absolutely irrelevant in eternal life,
  • i.e.: to be none.

However you claim further:

This seems to imply that any sin propagates “laterally” from sinners to other contemporary non-sinners by sort of spiritual contagion. This is the view also shared by advocates of the Homo divinus model. And the same implication would follow if Original Sin propagates as “relational damage”.

This interpretation has the merit to avoid transmission of Original sin through biological or genetic inheritance, and to this extent I fully agree to it.

However it seems additionally to endorse that God removes his Grace from someone, who didn’t sin. In this respect I deviate from this interpretation because it amounts to claim that God directly causes damage to an incarnate spirit.

Following Romans 11:32, I rather share the following interpretation:

After the first sin in human history (which is not necessarily the sin of the first free-willed humans) new incarnate spirits are created by God lacking Original Grace (i.e.: in the stage of Original Sin) for the sake of Redemption.

Notice that according to my interpretation only the effects of the first sin in human history become transmitted to new incarnate spirits at the moment of their creation, while according to your interpretation every sin becomes transmitted (like a virus) to everyone at any moment.

237

@AntoineSuarez, thank you for your comments, however I think I disagree with this statement.

Sin does not make humans unknown to God or unloved by God. What it does it prevents us from accepting God’s Love. Yes, ultimately this is true. When are life is complete and we still reject God’s love and live only for ourselves, then we do join all those who share this life style in Hell.

Sin does indeed spread as does love. Hate encourages hatred, just as love encourages love. That is why we need to forgive sin, which limits its effect.

I want to share with you some thought about sin. These are not theological, but anthropological. Humans are born selfish. They are born as helpless infants, so they must be self centered. If there are hungry they cry. If they are wet they cry. If they are hurting, they cry. Their needs come first.

As they grow us they become socialized. We learn to recognize and accept the needs of others. Of course some do not. They just learn to use the needs of others to benefit themselves. The question here is where do we balance the needs of others and ourselves?

Jesus tell us to love others as we love ourselves, so there is absolute parity, That is impossible unless we love God first and foremost, Who includes ourselves and others. God is the best for everyone and all in the long run. God enables us to get though the good times and the lean times when we are doing what is right for God.

Thus we start our selfish, but naïve Hopefully we move to respect and concern for others. Many of not most people do not get beyond this point, which is too bad, but it is not where Jesus wants us to end up. This is not salvation. For me as a Protestant Christian one needs to repent from the imperfect way humans balance their needs and others, and commit ourselves to God in order to be saved by grace through faith. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ that He gave to us the Church to share.

Sin is selfishness. It is not making a mistake, unless the mistake is because one did not do due diligence. It is going along with the crowd when we know or should know that the crowd is wrong. Our reaction to our sin, including our mistakes is confession and repentance. Sin is not good, but sin is forgiven. Condemnation is evil, when we refuse to admit our sin and try to justify it, as is done often today.

Sickness can be transmitted if we have no protection, no antibodies, no defenses. Jesus is our defense against sin.

2 Likes
238

Nicely expressed. I confess I have not followed this thread that closely, so this may be already hashed over, but when you say sin is selfishness, it reflects back to what happened in the garden, when Adam and Eve decided they wanted more for themselves. Perhaps the image of God was that capacity to love and put self aside, as Christ did on the cross, and which we all fail at doing and so sin and fall short.

1 Like
239

Poor Adam and Eve … They always take it on the chin … being blamed for the troubles of billions of human lives… and their pets, and even distant cousins on the tree of common descent.

So let’s look at their perfidy very closely:

  1. God says: Don’t touch the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil - or you’ll die.

  2. Adam says: “God it” < Hey, Father, see what I did there? Pretty clever for someone who is just a few days old, right?

  3. God forces a smile, and then goes to check on the tomatoes.

  4. Later, after Eve shows up, a voice and a hand from a tree says to Eve, you know there’s nothing dangerous about this fruit.

  5. Eve sees that the person holding the fruit is not dead, or even sick.

  6. Eve starts to question what exactly were those words… If the Serpent with the hands and feet takes a bite out of his own fruit, Eve is really going to be confused. The snake still breathes. He’s not choking. He’s not dying.

  7. So Eve, thinking she is mistaken, takes a bite. And so she concludes she was mistaken!

  8. She runs to show Adam.

  9. Adam is stunned… there is Eve with 2 pieces of fruit. The fruit she shouldn’t touch. But she’s not dead. She’s not even sniffling.

  10. Then Adam sees her taking a bite from one of the fruit… and she’s not gagging or collapsing.

  11. Eve says we must have been wrong about what The Big Guy said. Adam can only think that he got the whole story wrong.

  12. He puts the fruit in his hand. No wave of nausea. Then he takes a bite. And he is still alive.

  13. And then like a pretty wild night during the hippie days, suddenly, Adam sees Eve without any clothes. And Eve sees Adam without any clothes! They both agree they must have been mugged!

  14. Well, you guessed what happened next. God is in a pretty bad mood because the wolves were at the tomatoes again. And now he sees Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves like a bad tie dye concept!

  15. God says, “That settles it … you two… get off my lawn!”

  16. Adam and Eve are relieved that they weren’t going to die that day. In fact, it’s a good thing there wasn’t a 401k plan involved, because Adam and Eve, cursed with death, live for centuries longer!

  17. However, all their pets keep dying over and over… and the cow, Guyvette de Bretville, she was dead in some 20 years… Eve missed her considerably.

So… for whatever reason… God warned Adam about the curse of death, and by they time they actually die, they can barely remember what the question was!

Could they still have immortality? Absolutely - - if God would allow them to eat from the Tree of Life. It’s not like eating from the Tree of Good and Evil made the Tree of Life poisonous to them. Far from it. Eating from the Tree of Life would have done them a world of good.

But God is complex. And to this day, Adam can’t really explain to his Grand kids and his Great Great Great grand kids what God was all worked up about.

240

And that is why I tend to look at it metaphorically.

2 Likes
241

[quote=“Relates, post:237, topic:35442”]
I want to share with you some thought about sin. These are not theological, but anthropological. Humans are born selfish. They are born as helpless infants, so they must be self centered. If the(y) are hungry they cry. If they are wet they cry. If they are hurting, they cry. Their needs come first.
[/quote]

This is an excellent post, Roger. In past posts you have clearly expressed the reality of sin from a philosophical-theological perspective (relationship), and you have shown how this view would be compatible with the way the ancient people would have interpreted Genesis. We moderns have the advantage of science, especially anthropology, and should be pleased that makes it more evident how sin arose ‘naturally’ from the evolutionary mechanisms that produced humankind from its animal ancestors.

Human neonates are dependent for a much longer period than any other animal form, and during this period we become accustomed to a selfish, demanding way of life. If we take Genesis seriously and God intended us to become stewards (or even masters) of this planet, then humans had to learn to form societies, just as insects and some animal species became better survivors when acting jointly rather than individually. Insects achieved sociality through genetic mechanisms. Newly minted Homo sapiens sapiens were gifted with a Mind that realized selfhood but also appreciate selfhood in their fellow humans. (@beaglelady and in their pets and animals they depended upon) Thus it was easy to form a more effective society based on obvious kinship (extended family) but in order to extend the society further, humans had to rely on customs, beliefs and laws held in common.

This is the situation we find ourselves now. In the past, information transfer was localized because of limited technology, and so separate societies developed into separate nations that often warred against one another over differences in beliefs. When technology breeches these barriers, blending of societies can occur–witness East & West Germany overcoming differences in government but having a past history of shared culture. But can information sharing blend the differences in cultures of West & East, of democracy and totalitarianism? The technology that promoted global information sharing also unleashed the power of the atom and the power to spread plague. Tune in next century to see which force wins out!
Al Leo

242

I agree with you. When I claim that:

“sinning means freely choosing to remain alone forever, i.e.: to be unknown to God”

I refer to what “ultimately” happens, that is (in your wording): “when our life is complete and we still reject God’s love and live only for ourselves” and “then we do join all those who share this life style in Hell.”

Thus to be in Hell means to have no name and be “unknown” to God, according to Luke 13:27.

For the rest I like your formulations in this posting.

Nonetheless in your previous posting 224 you claimed:

Here you are referring to the first sin in human history, and claim that this sin “spread into all humankind like a virus”.

This explanation is fitting in several respects:

  • It accounts for the fact that all humans coming into existence after the first sin are in stage of sin, according to “because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

  • This stage of sin does not arise from any personal sin freely committed but everyone gets it unwillingly like one gets a contagious illness.

  • Since sin is something affecting the spirit this stage of sin is not transmitted to others through biological or genetic inheritance.

Nonetheless the explanation should NOT be misunderstood in the sense that:

everyone gets unwillingly the stage of sin generated by sins other than the first one.

Such a claim would amount to acknowledge that God damages every incarnate spirit (human being) every time someone commits a sin.

If one puts all these requirements together, we are led to the following conclusion:

Only the stage of sin produced by the first sin (the stage of original sin) becomes transmitted to every incarnate spirit created after the first sin, in such a way that everyone gets this stage unwillingly.

As repeatedly claimed, in my view the reason for this state of affairs is given in Romans 11:32.

243

Antoine, in responding to @Relates, who presented an explanation for human sin that is consistent with evolution, you cut out a very important part of his argument (accidentally, I presume). Roger stated that when Homo sapiens were gifted with a conscience (and language to transmit it to others), BOTH morality and sin could spread through humankind “like a virus”. When allowing for free will, morality and sin are just opposite sides of the same coin, and they appeared simultaneously. IMHO this is why I believe it is time for Christianity to abandon the concept of Original Sin, which states that the first perfectly created (i.e., sinless) Adam & Eve freely chose to rebel against their Creator.

If Christians are ready to accept evolution as the way God chose to create humankind, then we must face the fact that the ‘natural evil’ we see–e.g., a male lion killing his predecessor’s cubs, or the earlier hatchling bird shoving later arrivals out of the nest–these behaviors are part of human heritage also. God must value these creatures of his, but when He gave us a conscience and free will, He extended His special Love for us, and the invitation to rise above animal instincts to become His Image Bearers.

To me at least, this seems like a simpler, more satisfying view of our place in God’s universe. History tells us that humans have too often misused this Gift of Mind–not only to ignore the voice of conscience but to subvert some positive instincts, such as sexual desire, in ways the animals could never think of. To set us back on the track God envisioned, it was necessary to send His Son to be our guide and Savior.
respectfully,
Al Leo

244

@AntoineSuarez

Everyone is born into a fallen sin sick world, not by one’s own choice or free will. We do not choose the time, place or the circumstances of our birth. We did not even choose our parents.
Yet despite all this humans still have the ability to choose for or against God.

Yes, “the wages of sin is death.” Rom 6:23. Sin would not be bad if it did not injure both the sinner and the sinnee. Sin is social, which is the reason we are all sinners, even though we are saved by grace.

The issue is not how we became sinners, but what are we going to so about it. God has created humans as mortal creature, which means we will die, but God has given us an answer to the negative side if death through eternal life through Jesus Christ. Similarly God created humans as limited beings which means that they are almost certainly become sinners, but has provide an answer to sin through forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

Life as created by God has its challenges, but it also has its answers. God is not unjust. God gives us what we need, if not what we want. God gives humanity what we need for justice, freedom, and love for all and not just a relative few, but we need to do things God’s way, not ours even though we must make it our way by being born again through the Spirit…

Also humans are not “incarnate spirits.” We are physical, rational, and spiritual beings who are created in the triune Image of God. Romans 11:32 is not about original sin.

245

That is exactly what I am claiming.

The idea I try to convey is that “His special Love for us” included Original Grace (“Original Blessing”) as well, that is, a specially bright intellect and strong will to rise above animal instincts.

Nonetheless the first humans freely rejected the invitation to become His Image Bearers in the “unity of man and woman” (Genesis 1:27; 2:24, in line with Karl Barth), and “separated what God had joined together” (Matthew 19:6; Marc 10:9). According to this teaching of Jesus Christ this may have been the first sin in human history.

True enough! Apparently we are now reaching the point of “joining what God separated”, as current ad in Paris-Metro illustrates.

We need His guide and salvation more than ever!

246

If one reads this pericope in the light of Romans 3:22-24 and Romans 5:12, then it becomes clear that Romans 11:32 enounces the following general principle:

After the first sin in human history, everyone in the world is in need of Redemption and everyone is redeemable.

In my view this is the Christian teaching about original sin.

247

Do you think so, @AntoineSuarez? It doesn’t seem to fit the context. Let’s look at the text leading up to Romans 11:32

Rom 11:28-31
As concerning the gospel, They [those who belong to Israel genealogically] are enemies for your sakes:
but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. . . .

For as ye [those who were never part of Israel by birth] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: [Israel’s unbelief led to them being pruned, and thus making room for those outside of Israel to be grafted in where Israel once was.]

Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
[But in the same way non-Israel was rescued from disbelief, Israel shall also be rescued]

Concluding with Rom 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

This seems to suggest a point of Calvinism more than Original Sin…