FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Natural Evil before the Fall
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
I asked this question in the 'Adam Eve and Dinosaurs' thread already, but that topic is really focused on another question so I thought I'd start a new thread.

This question is really aimed at those that accept, to some degree at least, the modern scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and so forth.

I would like to know how people reconcile the existence of natural evil (animals, like dinosaurs, that kill each other and hunger and suffer and die etc.) before the Fall with Church teaching, which seems to maintain that said natural evil is a result of the Fall.
(06-25-2009, 12:32 PM)Martinus Wrote: [ -> ]I asked this question in the 'Adam Eve and Dinosaurs' thread already, but that topic is really focused on another question so I thought I'd start a new thread.

This question is really aimed at those that accept, to some degree at least, the modern scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and so forth.

I would like to know how people reconcile the existence of natural evil (animals, like dinosaurs, that kill each other and hunger and suffer and die etc.) before the Fall with Church teaching, which seems to maintain that said natural evil is a result of the Fall.

I think those who believe that are not fully appreciative of the perfection of creation, and the effects of the fall. It is hard to imagine at all what man was like, and what man will be, but it is a mistake I think to use our knowledge of the world now to discern the past and future. It is like a massive structure, which has collapses. The structure remains in some way, with the same parts and purpose of the original, but it is vastly different in construction and it is very hard to discern the original state from the remains.
(06-25-2009, 12:32 PM)Martinus Wrote: [ -> ]I asked this question in the 'Adam Eve and Dinosaurs' thread already, but that topic is really focused on another question so I thought I'd start a new thread.

This question is really aimed at those that accept, to some degree at least, the modern scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and so forth.

I would like to know how people reconcile the existence of natural evil (animals, like dinosaurs, that kill each other and hunger and suffer and die etc.) before the Fall with Church teaching, which seems to maintain that said natural evil is a result of the Fall.


Youre making a number of assumptions and presumptions here (not saying I agree or disagree but I am asking you for clarification and references supporting your point)

1. That natural evil consists in animals killing and eating each other and dying.

2 That Church teaching is that natural evil is a result of the Fall.

3. That there is some sort of contradiction between Church teaching and historical reality, which needs to be reconciled.

4. That only those who "accept, to some degree at least, the modern scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and so forth" would be the only ones able to answer the question when there is overwhelming evidence against such 'modern consensus', at the very least there is a plausible argument to the contrary, so in fact if it the modern consensus is wrong, then only those who reject it have a realistic chance of getting such answers correctly.

You say the Church seems to maintain that natural evil is a result of the fall, please provide references and evidence of this so we can debate it. Also provide references that the things you mentioned above about animals are ACTUALLY natural evils.

Thanks
Tradmav
First of all.........animals aren't "evil" .

They kill out of instinct for defensive purposes or to get something to eat so they don't starve.
We know the Fall of Man somehow affected animals, nature and all of creation. To what extent, we just don’t know. Let me switch routes for a moment: The Bible speaks of the NEW Creation when animals naturally opposed to each other will live peaceably together; the lion and the lamb and the kid and the leopard, etc. It could be a nice metaphor. But what that means is that there will be no more predator or prey, no more pain, death or suffering. Whether volcanoes will continue to erupt and hurricanes blow is still up for debate. They could erupt and blow, but pose no threat to living creatures.

Before the Fall of Man it could have been the same way. But how far do we take it? God made everything in the first creation and called it “Good.” He told everything, including mammals and insects, to be fruitful and multiply (in the New Creation there will be no multiplication of species). Now the animals in the original garden might have lived peacefully side by side. Even if they ate nothing but plants, that meant plants had to die. Insects had to be food for other creatures (or they would have had to die naturally), or they would have proliferated out of control. We know that not all dinosaurs of the prehistory era ate plants and insects. Some ate other dinosaurs. Does that mean God’s original creation was less than perfect? Who decides?

- Lisa
(06-25-2009, 01:04 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Before the Fall of Man it could have been the same way. But how far do we take it? God made everything in the first creation and called it “Good.” He told everything, including mammals and insects, to be fruitful and multiply (in the New Creation there will be no multiplication of species). Now the animals in the original garden might have lived peacefully side by side. Even if they ate nothing but plants, that meant plants had to die.
Not really. One can eat plants without killing them. The scriptures refer to the fruits of the trees mostly:

Quote:And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:

There are people now who believe that killing plants is wrong and follow a fruitarian diet.

Quote:Insects had to be food for other creatures (or they would have had to die naturally or continuously change form), or they would have proliferated out of control.
Or they could have ceased to multiply once their reached their required levels. The proliferation of species is probably one of the things that changed drastically. Now a new creature is a mix of its parents, a product of chaos. Perhaps the original plan would have had reproduction more structured, rather than so chaotic.

Quote: We know that not all dinosaurs of the prehistory era ate plants and insects. Some ate other dinosaurs. Does that mean God’s original creation was less than perfect? Or was it designed exactly the way He willed it to be? Who decides?
Or that they did not eat what they seemed to have eaten. We'd need to know nature of the original creation, which was almost completely destroyed.

Genesis 3:23-4 Wrote:And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

It seems that the original creation was destroyed, except for Adam and Eve themselves, and the rest of the world was second generation and affected by the fall. The original tree of life, whether it was a physical tree or not, was not changed and man was kept from it.

A modern creature can change drastically in one generation, given the right circumstances. We cannot know how much the change was from the pure creation and the fallen derivative.
Malachi Martin speculated at one point that from studying the Scriptures and looking at our material Universe, it could be inferred from the texts that the Universe as we see it and know it is an "ad hoc reconstruction"  possibly resulting from the cataclysm of the Angelic war spilling over into our material Universe.  He also speculated that ESP and other psychic phenomena is a part of our nature that we are normally forbidden to tap into since the Fall but God allows it in certain cases. 

First of all, I didn't mean to say that 'animals are evil'. Not at all. But I should think that animal suffering is, in iteslf, an objective evil. How else could it be described?

I don't have references, I suppose I should have said that. I can't find very much about this. In my suppositions I was thinking partly of scripture, which Lisa has already quoted, and partly of things I seem to remember hearing in other discussions of this. Perhaps I should draw some more questions from my original post then, and I'm really asking for sources as well as answers, rather than claiming to be able to supply any:

Do you think animals killing animals and suffering is, genreally, an evil? If not, what is it? Is it simply necessary?

If so, and if you think it started before the historical Fall, why did it start?

What you mentioned, Gerard, seems interesting. Can you quote Fr. Martin on that?

And what you said, Rosarium, is interesting also. Do you think, then, that the effects of the Fall could have 'reached back' in some sense, to affect the universe as it was before the Fall, and leaving nothing untainted?
(06-25-2009, 01:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think animals killing animals and suffering is, genreally, an evil? If not, what is it? Is it simply necessary?
I don't think it was God's design, so the reason why animals suffering and die is one of evil.

Quote:And what you said, Rosarium, is interesting also. Do you think, then, that the effects of the Fall could have 'reached back' in some sense, to affect the universe as it was before the Fall, and leaving nothing untainted?
Yes.

Imagine a tower of majestic beauty reaching to the Heavens where man and God could converse. Then, imagine man betraying God and the tower being toppled, but man using its rubble for support still. What once was great, majestic and perfect has fallen and it is impossible to know what it was like before the Fall. So our methods now are not able to see what it was really like based on the evidence left behind. Based on the ruins of the World Trade Centre, what can be determined about the original towers? The rubble was about two stories high, whereas the buildings themselves were over 100 stories tall. Man's fall, and the nature of the universe created for us, was greater than that.
(06-25-2009, 02:00 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine a tower of majestic beauty reaching to the Heavens where man and God could converse. Then, imagine man betraying God and the tower being toppled, but man using its rubble for support still. What once was great, majestic and perfect has fallen and it is impossible to know what it was like before the Fall. So our methods now are not able to see what it was really like based on the evidence left behind. Based on the ruins of the World Trade Centre, what can be determined about the original towers? The rubble was about two stories high, whereas the buildings themselves were over 100 stories tall. Man's fall, and the nature of the universe created for us, was greater than that.

Thanks Rosarium, that's a really really good example and very helpful.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5