Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teneas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rothbardcatholi said:
The rules that govern matter, or “the laws of nature” are the consequences of the properties of matter/energy itself. When God creates matter, space and time (and the resulting emergent laws of nature) are neccesarily created at the same time. Time and space are both consequences of matter. Laws of nature or “rules” are the emergent properties of the “stuff” of material creation.

Now God is in eternity and everything is present to him. We are contingent beings so we are part of a sequence of matter, time, space etc. Of course, our spirit is also contingent, but not on matter (rather on God.) The creation period seems to me to be both “all at once” (inasmuch as God creates out of nothing and we are part of his creation) but also it is gradual (inasmuch as we are bound by time and contingency, at least while we are embodied). It’s a matter of perspective. God is in eternity, we are not.
Click to expand...
During the creation period the laws could not be catalyzed?

I agree that God is outside our frame. Some have described time from God’s point as like a drop of milk scattering in all directions as it hits a surface. We only see it as linear.
 
buffalo said:
During the creation period the laws could not be catalyzed?
Click to expand...
In what sense are you using the word/terms “the creation period” and “catalyzed”? Are you assuming (with respect to the former) that there is a section of time, starting at the creation of matter and ending at some point after that (but in our past) in which the creation period ended? Or are you using the term in some other sense? Also, I understand ‘catalyze’ to mean ‘to act upon something in such a way as to bring about a change in it.’ Is that the sense in which you’re using the word?
 
Rothbardcatholi said:
In what sense are you using the word/terms “the creation period” and “catalyzed”? Are you assuming (with respect to the former) that there is a section of time, starting at the creation of matter and ending at some point after that (but in our past) in which the creation period ended? Or are you using the term in some other sense? Also, I understand ‘catalyze’ to mean ‘to act upon something in such a way as to bring about a change in it.’ Is that the sense in which you’re using the word?
Click to expand...
Yes Creation ex nihilo came to an end. Everything thing since has been transformation.

Catalyze - yes - I mean God influenced it, sped it up, or whatever. In addition there is speculation that the laws could be different in other parts of the universe. We canot prove they are the same.
 
larkin31 said:
SINCE ADAM?

No one denies that environmental products are effective us genetically. But this is not what you mean by genetic degradations since Adam, right? You meant something else, right?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve as created had “perfect” genetics. When they sinned corruption and death set in. Mutations (whatever the cause) have degraded our genetics over time.
 
buffalo said:
Adam and Eve as created had “perfect” genetics.
Click to expand...
Says who? What church holds this as dogma? I would love a link to any that do so I can read the phrasing of that doctrine for myself. I have never heard of this before, and I am very curious.
 
buffalo said:
Adam and Eve as created had “perfect” genetics. When they sinned corruption and death set in. Mutations (whatever the cause) have degraded our genetics over time.
Click to expand...
Right, exactly. That’s why it was possible for Abraham to marry his half-sister, but 1500 years later it was not possible for Moses to marry his cousin. The genetic code had deteriorated to the point where marrying half-siblings and cousins had become dangerous. Today, it is not possible for anyone to marry his second-cousin.
 
larkin31 said:
SINCE ADAM?
No one denies that environmental products are effective us genetically. But this is not what you mean by genetic degradations since Adam, right? You meant something else, right?
Click to expand...
Actually, my very brief review of scientific literature indicates that the environment definitely could have influenced the generations following Adam. Maybe you saw references to how changes in environment affected* pre*-humans in the PBS special on the origin theory of humans.
 
larkin31 said:
Says who? What church holds this as dogma? I would love a link to any that do so I can read the phrasing of that doctrine for myself. I have never heard of this before, and I am very curious.
Click to expand...
Regarding perfect genetics. The dogma realm of the Catholic Church concerns faith and morals and not science. However, it is reasonable from reading the Catholic teaching regarding “Man in Paradise” that Adam’s body was pristine.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Teneas said:
Like the title says. What say all of you to this.

Were Adam and Eve actually people?

Or were they just names given to no real people and merely meant to symbolize the history of the world and falling from grace that man did?
Click to expand...
the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe Adam and Eve were real people, and really fell from grace through pride/disobedience.

whether you believe in theistic evolution or creationism, these are teachings that come from the Church and that we should accept. (also that human beings have souls).
 
buffalo said:
Yes Creation ex nihilo came to an end. Everything thing since has been transformation.

Catalyze - yes - I mean God influenced it, sped it up, or whatever. In addition there is speculation that the laws could be different in other parts of the universe. We canot prove they are the same.
Click to expand...
It seems problematic to say “Creation ex nihilo came to an end. Everything since has been transformation.”

Of course, creation ex nihilo is “finished” in one sense, in that already happened and now we’re in it, but its not as if God’s creation of the universe and his sustaining of the universe are two different acts. God does not have parts and he doesn’t do one thing after another. His creation and sustaining of the world are one act. You seem to be envisioning a certain period of special time in which creation ex nihilo was going on and then a subsequent period in which everything was more or less fixed (within certain pre-prescribed limits). I’m not sure Catholic teaching requires this view.

Why can’t God’s creation of the world and his “catalyzation” of it be one act? The image that comes to mind when you say “God influenced it, sped it up, or whatever” is of a sort of Zeus-like being who takes a bunch of stuff and shapes it in various ways or of a magician God, popping in and out of material reality and eternity, fiddling with stuff till it’s just right. I doubt that having first created the universe, God would then have to “catalyze” this and that, as if it wasn’t good enough the first time. I suspect that God has placed in nature the seeds of its own development which work themselves out in time as he actively sustains and cooperates with it (for example, by creating spiritual souls simultaneously with human conception.)

As far as the laws of nature being different in different parts of the universe…well let’s hope not. This would render the physical sciences useless. Of course we cannot logically prove that the laws of nature must be the same everywhere (since material beings are contingent and therefore, not necessary like mathematical or logical proofs.) Nevertheless, there are two very good reasons for thinking that the laws of nature are uniform.
  1. God created the universe and wanted us to use reason to understand it, but this would be impossible if the laws governing matter weren’t uniform throughout all creation.
  2. So far, the assumption that the laws of nature are everywhere uniform has continually yielded astounding and intelligible results whereas the contrary thesis yields nothing at all. In other words, science works, so it’s basic assumptions are probably correct.
What both these examples demonstrate is the inseparability of uniformity and intelligibility. You can’t have one without the other.
 
grannymh said:
Actually, my very brief review of scientific literature indicates that the environment definitely could have influenced the generations following Adam. Maybe you saw references to how changes in environment affected* pre*-humans in the PBS special on the origin theory of humans.
Click to expand...
Of COURSE environment effects us, even on the genetic level. That is part of what evolutionary theory is.

I just want to read how any particular church doctrine tries to articulate this, and if they put it in a Young Earth scenario or not, and if they understand genetic change (several kinds) or not.

But I still want to know why Adam had “perfect” DNA and what that even means–and which church claims this. I have never heard this before today.
 
Rothbardcatholi said:
It seems problematic to say “Creation ex nihilo came to an end. Everything since has been transformation.”

Of course, creation ex nihilo is “finished” in one sense, in that already happened and now we’re in it, but its not as if God’s creation of the universe and his sustaining of the universe are two different acts. God does not have parts and he doesn’t do one thing after another. His creation and sustaining of the world are one act. You seem to be envisioning a certain period of special time in which creation ex nihilo was going on and then a subsequent period in which everything was more or less fixed (within certain pre-prescribed limits). I’m not sure Catholic teaching requires this view.

Why can’t God’s creation of the world and his “catalyzation” of it be one act? The image that comes to mind when you say “God influenced it, sped it up, or whatever” is of a sort of Zeus-like being who takes a bunch of stuff and shapes it in various ways or of a magician God, popping in and out of material reality and eternity, fiddling with stuff till it’s just right. I doubt that having first created the universe, God would then have to “catalyze” this and that, as if it wasn’t good enough the first time. I suspect that God has placed in nature the seeds of its own development which work themselves out in time as he actively sustains and cooperates with it (for example, by creating spiritual souls simultaneously with human conception.)

As far as the laws of nature being different in different parts of the universe…well let’s hope not. This would render the physical sciences useless. Of course we cannot logically prove that the laws of nature must be the same everywhere (since material beings are contingent and therefore, not necessary like mathematical or logical proofs.) Nevertheless, there are two very good reasons for thinking that the laws of nature are uniform.
  1. God created the universe and wanted us to use reason to understand it, but this would be impossible if the laws governing matter weren’t uniform throughout all creation.
  2. So far, the assumption that the laws of nature are everywhere uniform has continually yielded astounding and intelligible results whereas the contrary thesis yields nothing at all. In other words, science works, so it’s basic assumptions are probably correct.
What both these examples demonstrate is the inseparability of uniformity and intelligibility. You can’t have one without the other.
Click to expand...
We are using the creation in two ways.
  1. God’s creation as in the universe
  2. God’'s creation as in the creative act.
It seems we are trying to constrain God’s abilities. Catalyze means to accelerate. Why could not the initial creation be accelerated? In fact the Big Bang theorists claim that it was under tremendous acceleration at the initial moments. (inflation)

On the seventh day he rested from creating as it was finished. Yes, He sustains His creation and participates in it.

The laws do not have to be the same, If time is lowing down for example and we can measure it does not mean it has to be the same here or otherwise. Who made the laws? Why God of course. Is He under any obligation to make them uniform. Now if the laws were random and unintelligible as the pagans believed, there would be no pursuit of science. A variable law does not render it unintelligible.
 
And there is a reason why the masses look down on the blue-bloods as being a bit nuts - they are. All that inbreeding is not good for them.
Indeed after a bit more research it’s worth pointing out that the Church itself allows marriage to second cousins. Here are the relevant parts of Canon law below:-
Click to expand...
I would still personally consider it a bad idea, especially if there are any known genetic diseases in the family.

There is still the fact that Abraham married his half-sister. Would you encourage your first-born son to marry your daughter from a second marriage?

Things have changed since then, right? 🤷
 
larkin31 said:
Of COURSE environment effects us, even on the genetic level. That is part of what evolutionary theory is.

I just want to read how any particular church doctrine tries to articulate this, and if they put it in a Young Earth scenario or not, and if they understand genetic change (several kinds) or not.

But I still want to know why Adam had “perfect” DNA and what that even means–and which church claims this. I have never heard this before today.
Click to expand...
Let’s look at the following dogmas:


  1. *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
    *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
    *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
    *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
    *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
    *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
    *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
    *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
    *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
    *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
    *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
    *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
    *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

    So God endowed upon them freedom from death and sickness. (preternatural gifts) This states that physically they were superior to today’s man. Except recently men held respect for their ancestors because they were closer to God and that every generation is one more removed. Evolutionary theory states the opposite and that our ancestors were closer to monkeys and therefore inferior.

    Had Adam and Eve not sinned they would have retained their “free from corruption” bodies. At the second coming we will receive glorified bodies with the same traits.
 
Listen, I know a man who married his sister for “cultural” reasons. Only one of the kids was crazy, but still … 🤷

By the way, just so you know, I’m from Canada. We have the BNA Act; not the Declaration of Independence. I don’t doubt that the majority of the signers to the BNA Act were inbred, too. 😉
 
larkin31 said:
Of COURSE environment effects us, even on the genetic level. That is part of what evolutionary theory is.

I just want to read how any particular church doctrine tries to articulate this, and if they put it in a Young Earth scenario or not, and if they understand genetic change (several kinds) or not.

But I still want to know why Adam had “perfect” DNA and what that even means–and which church claims this. I have never heard this before today.
Click to expand...
Before I can address your request, you need to understand that the dogma realm of Catholicism is in faith and morals and not in science. Therefore, there will be no officially proclaimed dogma on genetics.

Then you need to understand that individuals, including high ranking clergy who are speaking as individuals, can say what they dang please about any subject.

Because I do not want to derail this thread, my suggestion is that if you want particular information about dogmas, etc., you check the numerous threads on that topic.

The last thing I hope you will understand is the concept of growth in the understanding of Divine Revelation, especially that concerning Adam and Eve.

I especially appreciate your post 148 because it is important for me to be on the same page you are. I am wondering if there were Calvinistic influences in your Protestant heritage. My study of the Reformation was years ago so I am not entirely sure of the differences between John Calvin, Martin Luther, John and Charles Wesley and others.

I am using the following link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as my source for Catholic teachings. However, it is not always easy to research this source, so it will take some extra time. Currently, I am interested in the section
“Man in Paradise” paragraphs 374-379. I especially don’t want to be guilty of over reading simple statements.

Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.
 
buffalo said:
We are using the creation in two ways.
  1. God’s creation as in the universe
  2. God’'s creation as in the creative act.
It seems we are trying to constrain God’s abilities. Catalyze means to accelerate. Why could not the initial creation be accelerated? In fact the Big Bang theorists claim that it was under tremendous acceleration at the initial moments. (inflation)

On the seventh day he rested from creating as it was finished. Yes, He sustains His creation and participates in it.

The laws do not have to be the same, If time is lowing down for example and we can measure it does not mean it has to be the same here or otherwise. Who made the laws? Why God of course. Is He under any obligation to make them uniform. Now if the laws were random and unintelligible as the pagans believed, there would be no pursuit of science. A variable law does not render it unintelligible.
Click to expand...
What I’m saying is that you cannot separate God’s creative act from the creation of the universe nor either of those things from God’s nature. Even though we cannot comprehend God totally, we can know some things about his nature via reason (which he gave us). We know for example, that God cannot create a triangle with four sides since that is a self-contradiction. He also cannot will evil, because it is contrary to his nature. What I am saying is that is seems contrary to his nature to create the world which functions irrationally or which requires him to constantly rearange parts, as if he hadn’t planned it well enough.
  1. You are using “catalyze” in a totally different sense than Big Bang theorists. They are saying that the properties of matter in the universe were such that is caused it to function in a particular way (a prediction they could only make by assuming the laws of nature are everywhere uniform!)
  2. God’s resting on the seventh day is not to be read literally, as obviously God has no need to “rest” in a physical sense since he’s all powerful.
  3. There is no evidence that time is slowing down. This claim has been made by certain Young Earth Creationists in order to yield a young earth. The speed of time is one of the universal constants.
  4. A “variable law” is a contradiction in terms. A law is a law precisely because it’s invariable (otherwise we’d call it a “trend” or a “tendency”).
 
grannymh said:
Before I can address your request, you need to understand that the dogma realm of Catholicism is in faith and morals and not in science. Therefore, there will be no officially proclaimed dogma on genetics.

Then you need to understand that individuals, including high ranking clergy who are speaking as individuals, can say what they dang please about any subject.

Because I do not want to derail this thread, my suggestion is that if you want particular information about dogmas, etc., you check the numerous threads on that topic.

The last thing I hope you will understand is the concept of growth in the understanding of Divine Revelation, especially that concerning Adam and Eve.

I especially appreciate your post 148 because it is important for me to be on the same page you are. I am wondering if there were Calvinistic influences in your Protestant heritage. My study of the Reformation was years ago so I am not entirely sure of the differences between John Calvin, Martin Luther, John and Charles Wesley and others.

I am using the following link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as my source for Catholic teachings. However, it is not always easy to research this source, so it will take some extra time. Currently, I am interested in the section
“Man in Paradise” paragraphs 374-379. I especially don’t want to be guilty of over reading simple statements.

Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the CC actually does not make a claim about the genetic perfection of Adam.

I don’t know why you did, then. You’re just speculating? Winging it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top