|
Post by guillaume on Jan 9, 2009 17:34:25 GMT
Silly or strange question, I know. but I am watching a program on Sky 1 about a lion lover. And God, you just want to hug those big cats, lions and tigers....... they are so beautiful. But, they are deadly. Man eater, wild, terrible, dangerous..... They ate the martyrs... They rush to a piece a bloody meat like a starving zombie, without thinking. But, but and plenty of but. Do they know, we love them.... ? I remember some propaganda from some Jehovah's witness, showing (in the "other world") the human being, being friend to tigers, lions and others wild animals. Remember also, The Chronicle of Narnia, in which a Lion is the Ruler, ruler of Goodness. So since those animals are killer and wild, bit like us, did they suffer also from the Fall of Adam and Eve, and since have an evil side in them ?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 9, 2009 18:02:54 GMT
We don't know. This is actually one of the problems posed by modern science; in the patristic and mediaeval period Christians believed that animals did share in the Fall, and that animal predation would not have happened without it; but it is clear from the fossil record that there were carnivorous animals on the earth long before humanity appeared. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are very heterodox but their imagery of animals as friends of humans in the restored world actually draws on well-established Biblical imagery of Eden restored by the Messiah and the lion lying down with the lamb. There are quite a few artistic depictions of this "peaceful kingdom", going back to the Renaissance.) I really don't know what theological reflection there has been on this. I know CS Lewis suggested animals might have been corrupted by the Fall of the Angels, or even suffered some unrecorded preliminary Fall of their own, but I suspect this reflects the Platonist influence in Lewis's thought and poses the problem of seeing evil as somehow innate in the material world. It should be borne in mind that animals cannot be "evil" in the sense that a human being can be, because they cannot make moral choices. From my own cat experiences I find it hard to think that they do not have personalities and affections of some sort - but are they morally responsible for what they do to mice (they don't just kill them - they torment them first)?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 9, 2009 18:11:26 GMT
While on the Original Sin subject - and in case any of our atheist friends gets the wrong idea let me make it clear that I do NOT believe the story of Adam and Eve is a literal account, but that it is a mystery written to teach us - did anyone see the very silly article in the IRISH TIMES a few days ago which defended clerical celibacy on the grounds that without the Fall humanity would have reproduced asexually (as in the Virgin Birth)? There have admittedly been a few theologians who held this view, but the vast majority (including Augustine and Aquinas) have held otherwise, because if human beings were supposed to reproduce asexually, why should they be sexually differentiated from the beginning? Furthermore, the view that sex is a consequence of the Fall implies that it is somehow inherently evil, rather than a good that may be given up for higher purposes, and this view of sexuality is certainly at odds with the historic Catholic mainstream (whether pastoral applications of the Church's teaching have always lived up to it is another story). It amounts to saying that redemption means turning mankind into angels rather than redeeming humanity as humanity. We hav seen a nasty example of that sort of angelism on this board, in the shape of Jibril, so happily exorcised after he took to maintaining that Christianity required that evildoers should be allowed to run rampant and that it was sinful to seek to punish them or protect past and/or future victims.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 12, 2009 22:36:15 GMT
Q: Do animals suffer from original sin? A: No.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 13, 2009 14:32:02 GMT
This is a very odd topic.
I would have to say original sin does not apply to animals.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 13, 2009 22:40:20 GMT
This is a very odd topic. I would have to say original sin does not apply to animals. I agree. Isaiah 11 does suggest that in a state of innocence there might have been no predators or prey, but that just evokes the Prelapsarian world. I have never heard it suggested that animals have a capacity for sin.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2009 15:52:44 GMT
Animals may not have a capacity for sin, but that is not quite Guillaume's point - they might not commit sin and might yet be affected by sin. Guillaume has really raised a valid point, which is how do we reconcile with tthe existence of a just God the suffering inflicted and endured by animals (as well as by innocents generally). I'm with Job on this one - we just have to trust in God's goodness and do our best. I'm surprised none of the atheists have picked up this thread. Perhaps the reference to original sin in the heading put them off.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 14, 2009 16:26:37 GMT
Animals may not have a capacity for sin, but that is not quite Guillaume's point - they might not commit sin and might yet be affected by sin. Guillaume has really raised a valid point, which is how do we reconcile with tthe existence of a just God the suffering inflicted and endured by animals (as well as by innocents generally). I'm with Job on this one - we just have to trust in God's goodness and do our best. I'm surprised none of the atheists have picked up this thread. Perhaps the reference to original sin in the heading put them off. Hi Hibernicus and a happy new year to you and all here. Speaking from my own point of view as an Atheist, I have read through this post but I feel there is nothing much of worth I can contribute to it. I dont subscribe to the concept of original sin at all and I actually view it with a tinge of resentment. To my mind it instills a sense of guilt in the catholic from an early age. I feel that branding the new borns amongst us as sinners when they have no concept of where or what they are is quite bizarre. Even when I was a catholic I had problems with this concept. Indeed my mother (a good catholic woman) feels the same way on this particular topic. Even she believes that the story of Adam and Eve is a metophorical one put in the bible to illustrate a point rather than an accurate historical telling of events. I'm sure many other catholics feel that way too. So naturally, for me, original sin does not apply to animals.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 15, 2009 16:55:30 GMT
I would have thought that original sin in some form is an extremely believable doctrine; given that human beings clearly have a capacity to suffer and inflict great evil (or suffering if you have difficulty with the concept of evil). Hemingway's real issue is with the Catholic/Christian explanation for it. The belief that human beings are inherently capable of perfection is actually less humane, because it implies that thsoe who do not achieve perfection have only themselves to blame for it. People widely beleive that the Augustinian view of original sin is elitist/rigorist and the Pelagian one liberal/permissive for the reason I mentioned. This is in fact the reverse of the truth (for the reason given in the first sentence of the paragraph.) I beleive the Orthodox Churches have a somewhat different concept of original sin which they regard as less rigorist; they define it in terms of a sickness for which medicine is required. Can anyone elucidate this?
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 16, 2009 12:10:11 GMT
I would have thought that original sin in some form is an extremely believable doctrine; given that human beings clearly have a capacity to suffer and inflict great evil Can you expand on this answer? Specifically the part about it being a "believable doctrine". In my experience its one of the tenets of the catholic faith that many Catholics find extremely hard to swallow. I speak as a former catholic of twenty-odd years who attended the de la salle brothers, sang in the local choir and had much contact with church all my life. I find it hard to reconcile myself with the fact that in the eyes of the church we are all branded as somehow unclean until we are baptised. How can one look at and hold a new born baby and think it is somehow rotten in its soul and it needs to be cleansed. I certainly cannot. This original sin line tells us that unless we are brought to a church and introduced from an early age to Catholicism we are somehow unclean and must pay the consequences in the hereafter. Indeed limbo used to be the destination for such people but I believe a pope saw fit to downgrade this fate for babies. Of course, in my view, this is typical church rhetoric. It tells us that we are guilty from day one, and that the only way to redeem ourselves is to follow the rules of the church. Its the whole tactic of making adherents feel guilt if they do not comply. The same goes for missing mass, not attending confession, eating meat on good friday etc. Guilt. A powerful weapon.... until you rid yourself of it. Surely this concept of original sin must appeal to your common sense Hibericus. You are obviously a very bright fellow. Doesn’t this sit ever so slightly uncomfortably with you on some level?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 16, 2009 18:29:08 GMT
If you've never hurt anyone during your lifetime, whether by action or omission, then you're a better man than I am. That's what I mean by original sin.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 19, 2009 10:30:25 GMT
If you've never hurt anyone during your lifetime, whether by action or omission, then you're a better man than I am. That's what I mean by original sin. Am I correct in stating that Original Sin is said to result from the Fall of Man, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of a tree in the Garden of Eden? Its my understanding that Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits during their lives. Is my understanding correct on this issue? Of course I have hurt people, as you state "by action or omission" (and I do not claim to be a better man than you are), but surely this is regarded as actual sin rather than original sin, which I understand is the topic under discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 19, 2009 16:30:47 GMT
Hemingway,
I think you are correct, while I would disagree with Hibernicus.
|
|