Immaculate Caonceived? Are you?
Assuming that the Church says it is ok to believe in evolution and that the story of creation related in the book of Genesis says nothing about the original state of Adam and Eve in regard to a fall.
Assuming too that The Church does not teach the existence of Limbo and therefore accepts that 'original sin' is natural weakness rather than a real sin.
Christ says that sin is not passed on genetically. Following these statements can it not follow that each of us is Immaculately Conceived?
What is the exact quote?
What is the exact quote? 'Who sinned this man or his parents?' Christ answered ' Neither this man or his parents' Not an exact translation.
I thought as much, but let's
I thought as much, but let's look at the whole bit:
---
John 9: 1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
---
It does not say that sin is not passed down, which would be contrary to the Decalogue:
---
Exodus 20: 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."
---
So it seems that sin, or at least the effects of it, is inherited. Not all physical ills can be blamed on sin (obviously), which was the common belief at the time. This is similarly countered in the recent Gospel reading (Lk 13:1-5).
Why teach or try to teach
Why teach or try to teach the most confining interpretation of scripture when the more obvious interpretation is acceptable.
You say the above reading indicates that the effects of sin can be inherited when the writer was really only offering the stick and carrot method of conversion. The Tradition of the church [of which the bible is only a small part ] has been to interpret the Christ message in way that is least burdensome manner. It seems that the Prarisees were the ones to lay on the guilt,the 'sin',and the depression on the church even after Christ's death and resurrection.
There are lots of pharisaical interpretations rampant in the church and they seem to destroy the message and change it from positive to negative.
The "more obvious
The "more obvious interpretation" would be the one that follows with the rest of Scripture and is based on what is actually on the page. The verse says nothing about inheriting sin, only that this man is not blind because of his parents' sin. The Sacred Scriptures are a large and essential part of the Teaching of the Church, so important that Catholic theology rejects propositions directly opposed to Scripture. The positive message, the Gospel, if you will, is that we are freed from our sin through the Blood of Christ poured out on the Cross.
I thought that was the
I thought that was the statement you were thinking of. Sevenup, and I see your understanding of it as valid.
"Assuming that the Church
"Assuming that the Church says it is ok to believe in evolution" > Incomplete, the creation of a soul and it being inserted at some point signals the beginning of the human race is also necessary part of Christian belief, as well as Intelligent Design.
"and that the story of creation related in the book of Genesis says nothing about the original state of Adam and Eve in regard to a fall." > Really? Not unless Genesis 1-3 get removed from the Bible. Genesis 1 man is good; Genesis 2 man is naked without same; Genesis 3 man falls, is ashamed, gains knowledge of evil, as well as that whole enmity thing.
"Assuming too that The Church does not teach the existence of Limbo" > this is correct, Limbo was never more than theological speculation. It also seems irrelevant as your next point:
"and therefore accepts that 'original sin' is natural weakness rather than a real sin." > ... is a non sequitur. Concupiscence (the tendency of man to sin, particularly as evident in the exaltation of the emotional and physichal over the rational), is a result of Original Sin, but is not Original Sin itself.
"Christ says that sin is not passed on genetically." > I am having trouble locating this. He does say that physical ills are not always the result of sin, but could you point out what passage you're referring to? St Paul certainly held that the effects of sin are transmitted to all from the fall of one man.
"Following these statements can it not follow that each of us is Immaculately Conceived?" > Your argument rests on only one point, namely the un-cited quote from Christ.