Adam and Eve and Enneagrams

  • Thread starter Thread starter reagan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

reagan

Guest
How do I defend the faith when someone says Adam and Eve were not historical figures ? What does the Church teach? Also, the controversy of enneagrams has been talked about and I feel it is New Age, but how do I approach it? I am a converted Catholic, formally Protestant, and have encountered the liberal v conservative Catholic argument on these subjects.
 
40.png
reagan:
How do I defend the faith when someone says Adam and Eve were not historical figures ? What does the Church teach? Also, the controversy of enneagrams has been talked about and I feel it is New Age, but how do I approach it? I am a converted Catholic, formally Protestant, and have encountered the liberal v conservative Catholic argument on these subjects.
Click to expand...
Enneagrams are put forth as a legitemate personality model. However it is rooted in mysticism and continues to have elements of numerology in the relationships between the actual numbers assigned to the personality types.

There are other personality models that were arrived at scientificly, such as, Myers Briggs.
 
<< How do I defend the faith when someone says Adam and Eve were not historical figures ? >>

If that someone claims to be Catholic ask them to explain the following paragraphs in the Catechism:

The clear references to Adam/Eve as “our first parents” and existing as a literal, historical couple include paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc. See paragraphs 355ff on the creation of man and woman, and paragraphs 385ff on the Fall. Here is a summary from this latter section:
  1. By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
  2. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
  3. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
  4. “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is… ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
I don’t see a way of interpreting this as meaning a symbolical and not historical Adam/Eve. Although the Catechism does state at least some of the language of Genesis 1-3 is figurative / symbolical (see paragraphs 337, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), Adam/Eve would not be purely “symbolical.”

If someone claims evolution shows Adam/Eve didn’t exist or didn’t have souls, I don’t think evolution necessarily speaks to that. There are indeed tough theological objections that need answering, and a new book I am reading called Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette tries to deal with all the philosophical problems. Written from an orthodox Catholic perspective, published by Sapientia Press, forward by intelligent design advocate Michael Behe.

The book gives too much credence to the “young earth creationism” position in my opinion since the author is sympathetic to that viewpoint (the Kolbe Center for Creation, etc) but does not himself hold it. He is also not a scientist but a philosopher, so the science is a little weak or not well presented in this book.

An Evangelical book that is even better is Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller, a Christian geologist from Kansas State. Need to finish this one as well. There are at least two chapters on Adam/Eve in this book. All the essays are written by evangelical Christians who are also trained in science.

Another book is the Commentary on Genesis 1-3 "In the Beginning…" by Cardinal Ratzinger, I typed in two sections of that online.

Phil P
 
I believe in evolution alot more than a six day creation. I also believe there were pre-Adams with human bodies but NOT a soul which is what makes us human.

I have a very interesting book from a Jewish man I believe who is also a scientist, it’s called “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. I highly recemend it. You might actualy be surprised on what alot of ancient Jews believed because of the original Biblical language of the Old Testament.

May the Peace of God be with you:)
 
J.W.B.:
I believe in evolution alot more than a six day creation. I also believe there were pre-Adams with human bodies but NOT a soul which is what makes us human.

I have a very interesting book from a Jewish man I believe who is also a scientist, it’s called “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. I highly recemend it. You might actualy be surprised on what alot of ancient Jews believed because of the original Biblical language of the Old Testament.

May the Peace of God be with you:)
Click to expand...
I’m curious where you obtained the belief in “pre-Adams with human bodies but NOT a soul”. I can’t see it in the Bible or Church teachings and the theory of Evolution can not say anything about the presence or absence of souls since we have never found a fossilized soul. Was it from this book that you mentioned?
 
I’m curious where you obtained the belief in “pre-Adams with human bodies but NOT a soul”. I can’t see it in the Bible or Church teachings and the theory of Evolution can not say anything about the presence or absence of souls since we have never found a fossilized soul. Was it from this book that you mentioned?
Click to expand...
I’m not the person you are asking, but since I hold a similar view I can provide a reason for such a belief. First, evolutionary theory strongly suggests that humanity evolved physically, but can not speak on matters of the soul as you said. Second, the Catholic Church teaches that the soul was immediately created, not evolved, and that Adam and Eve were the first to possess human souls. Therefore, when combining the best scientific knowledge and the Truth of the Catholic faith, we can determine that there were animals with human physical shape before Adam and Eve, but they lacked human souls. These would be the “pre-Adams” that the other poster is describing. They provided the material components of the very human Adam and Eve, and God immediately and intimately imparted human souls into our first parents.
 
Thanks for those links regarding Enneagrams. I’ve seen the book(s) around quite a bit, often in Christian bookshops, but reading the cover was enough to tell me to steer clear.

It’s good to read solid information about it, especially from Mitch Pacwa, and find out exactly what’s wrong with it. So many thanks for the links.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
I’m not the person you are asking, but since I hold a similar view I can provide a reason for such a belief. First, evolutionary theory strongly suggests that humanity evolved physically, but can not speak on matters of the soul as you said. Second, the Catholic Church teaches that the soul was immediately created, not evolved, and that Adam and Eve were the first to possess human souls. Therefore, when combining the best scientific knowledge and the Truth of the Catholic faith, we can determine that there were animals with human physical shape before Adam and Eve, but they lacked human souls. These would be the “pre-Adams” that the other poster is describing. They provided the material components of the very human Adam and Eve, and God immediately and intimately imparted human souls into our first parents.
Click to expand...
scm

Ghostly pretty much answered what I could of. And yes, imformation such as this is in the book I quoted, especialy the chapter on “The Orgin of Humankind.” It’s a very interesting book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top