Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[larkin31]

I agree with much of what you said Granny, but I don’t really see that science as such is the reason that some people think the Eucharist is symbolic and I’m not sure what you mean by sin being seen as ‘symbolic’. In the case of the Eucharist, I think this has more to do with priests who are too wimpy to teach the faith from the pulpit (or who have effectively lost their faith) and bishops who deliberately undermine the faith. When I was a kid we attended a great historic parish in Maryland which was bursting with faithful Catholics…that is until the bishop ordered that no one be allowed to receive the Eucharist on his knees at the communion rail. He also removed the statues of Mary and Joseph and the marble side altars upon which they stood. These same bishops promote a left-wing political agenda and rule over priests who almost never mention the sacraments or sin during homilies. What are people from my generation to do? We’ve heard more sermons about the “virtue” of coercive wealth redistribution than about the personal duty of charity. It’s obvious that high ranking people in the Church no longer believe, so why should the young (already badly catechized) make the effort?

I think most people do believe in sin, even non-Christians. But there’s a lot of effective propaganda out there to the effect that this, that and the other thing is not really a sin. Hollywood and the music industry push a lot of art and music which is very catchy and very corrupt. Meanwhile, Christians create very little music or film that is really good enough to be watchable. The real issue in my opinion is not that science is a big deal–most scientists for the last 400 years have been Christians! No the problem is that the culture has changed and people no longer take the Church seriously…and I’m sorry to say that it’s partly because the Church doesn’t seem to take itself seriously. I know that that’s a broad statement and sort of a change of subject, but I think that’s what is really wrong.

Best Regards

RothbardCatholic

Modern culture is evolving in its understanding of human nature, human culture, and the cosmos. Some of this development is in conflict with the orthodox teachings of Christianity because Christianity came out of a world view very different. To the degree that literal readings of the scriptures MUST be accepted will, in many cases now, alienate some people looking for religious meaning and community.

But, yes, to some degree, “God” is a tough sell in modern Western culture.

 

[larkin31]

Science is science. The real issue is the way science is being interpreted.

How do you mean? Do you mean, say, in disbelieving that a flood occurred as high as the highest mountains, etc?

 

[grannymh]

“perfect” was the word you used. But even if it were “pristine,” I simply want to know what you mean scientifically.

May I respectfully point out that it was you, not me, who used " the genetic perfection of Adam" in your post 184. Furthermore, I traced my posts all the way back and my draft regarding the genetics of Adam, was never posted.

Blessings,
granny

Human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Modern culture is evolving in its understanding of human nature, human culture, and the cosmos. Some of this development is in conflict with the orthodox teachings of Christianity because Christianity came out of a world view very different.

There has never been any human culture which did not find itself challenged by the teachings of Christ. His first century disciples were as shocked and bothered by some of his commands as are modern people. This is nothing new. Culture is always “evolving”, but the question is always “is it evolving toward truth or away from it.”

 

[larkin31]

Granny:

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.

Sorry, it was this post by “buffalo”. But then you came in on the same conversation.

But here is the word “perfect,” which has been my focus, and the center of the conversation you came in on.

 

[larkin31]

There has never been any human culture which did not find itself challenged by the teachings of Christ. His first century disciples were as shocked and bothered by some of his commands as are modern people. This is nothing new. Culture is always “evolving”, but the question is always “is it evolving toward truth or away from it.”

Fair enough, but you are changing the point.

The challenges to believe in a God that made a human from a rib are greater today. The challenges to believe in a man who carried pairs of all the animals on a boat in a great flood as high as the highest mountains are greater today. The challenges to follow church leaders who claim that women should be silent in church are greater today. This was my point, not whether the faith is valid or not.

 

[buffalo]

Modern culture is evolving in its understanding of human nature, human culture, and the cosmos. Some of this development is in conflict with the orthodox teachings of Christianity because Christianity came out of a world view very different. To the degree that literal readings of the scriptures MUST be accepted will, in many cases now, alienate some people looking for religious meaning and community.

But, yes, to some degree, “God” is a tough sell in modern Western culture.

Sure it will - it hurts our ears to deal with hard truths. Our self reliance helps us deny that our Creator sustains us. It makes us more arrogant. It is difficult for the arrogant to find God let alone search for Him.

When a secularist meets the truth they are faced with a choice - change their life, or ignore or belittle the truth.

None of this changes the truth for it will always be true. This hurts us as a civilization.

What some want is to interpret Scripture in a way that allows us to continue in sin.

 

[buffalo]

How do you mean? Do you mean, say, in disbelieving that a flood occurred as high as the highest mountains, etc?

Did anyone measure the highest mountain at the time of the flood?

If the ocean basins are leveled the depth of the water would be around 9000 feet deep.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Fair enough, but you are changing the point.

The challenges to believe in a God that made a human from a rib are greater today. The challenges to believe in a man who carried pairs of all the animals on a boat in a great flood as high as the highest mountains are greater today. The challenges to follow church leaders who claim that women should be silent in church are greater today. This was my point, not whether the faith is valid or not.

Well Catholics have never been required by the Church to read the creation story literalistically. The early Church fathers (I mean the one’s who lived very close to the time of Christ) tended to read these things mystically. It is moderns who assume that the entire Bible is straight history, but that is not how either ancient Jewish or Ancient Christian commentators saw it. Ditto for the Noah’s ark story, which again is Jewish retelling of the Deluge legend. The Deluge legend is found in nearly every ancient culture along with a story of a man who builds a boat and saves his family and animals.

Women are not “silent” in Catholic mass. Both in the early Church and again in the modern Church there are female readers and of course singers. I don’t know where you are getting this stuff from. You should pick up and Catholic biblical commentary (like the Jerome Biblical commentary) from the library to get an idea of how Catholics have historically read different parts of the Bible. There are always challenges to being a Catholic, but I find that the challenge is primarily to one’s will, not to the intellect.

 

[buffalo]

Fair enough, but you are changing the point.

The challenges to believe in a God that made a human from a rib are greater today. The challenges to believe in a man who carried pairs of all the animals on a boat in a great flood as high as the highest mountains are greater today. The challenges to follow church leaders who claim that women should be silent in church are greater today. This was my point, not whether the faith is valid or not.

Guess where science found one of the best sources of stem cells? The rib.

 

[larkin31]

Sure it will - it hurts our ears to deal with hard truths. Our self reliance helps us deny that our Creator sustains us. It makes us more arrogant. It is difficult for the arrogant to find God let alone search for Him.

When a secularist meets the truth they are faced with a choice - change their life, or ignore or belittle the truth.

None of this changes the truth for it will always be true. This hurts us as a civilization.

What some want is to interpret Scripture in a way that allows us to continue in sin.

Again, this wasn’t the point.

I was trying to reply to a statement about the modern tension between faith and modern secular knowledge. The increase in secular knowledge has made some aspects of dogma more difficult to accept. It is inevitable and will continue. I could never attend a church that claimed that Adam and Eve were literally created from dust and were literally the first humans and were literally immortal. But then, I grew up in a church that did not literally claim these things.

 

[larkin31]

Well Catholics have never been required by the Church to read the creation story literalistically. The early Church fathers (I mean the one’s who lived very close to the time of Christ) tended to read these things mystically. It is moderns who assume that the entire Bible is straight history, but that is not how either ancient Jewish or Ancient Christian commentators saw it. Ditto for the Noah’s ark story, which again is Jewish retelling of the Deluge legend. The Deluge legend is found in nearly every ancient culture along with a story of a man who builds a boat and saves his family and animals.

Women are not “silent” in Catholic mass. Both in the early Church and again in the modern Church there are female readers and of course singers. I don’t know where you are getting this stuff from. You should pick up and Catholic biblical commentary (like the Jerome Biblical commentary) from the library to get an idea of how Catholics have historically read different parts of the Bible. There are always challenges to being a Catholic, but I find that the challenge is primarily to one’s will, not to the intellect.

I recently had a conversation with a Catholic who veils his female family members in public and in church, as Paul requires. I was referring to Paul’s commentary, and I know that not all Catholics do this. Does not the CC dogma teach that the Flood story is literally true at least in some particulars?

Anyway, you see what I am getting at, and I agree with you about the more mystical readings of the OT–it only makes sense (IMO).

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Guess where science found one of the best sources of stem cells? The rib.

Wow. that’s very interesting.

 

[larkin31]

Guess where science found one of the best sources of stem cells? The rib.

Is that right?

So? Be specific in your claims, please, rather than these vague suggestions. Are you claiming that the Biblical account of making Eve from Adam’s rib is scientifically prescient because stem cells (for cloning) can be found there? Are you claiming that God cloned Eve (although he would have to change the XY to XX, making Eve a “transgenic” animal) this way? Are you claiming that God is in favor of (and has already used) stem cell research and applications in human subjects?

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I recently had a conversation with a Catholic who veils his female family members in public and in church, as Paul requires. I was referring to Paul’s commentary, and I know that not all Catholics do this. Does not the CC dogma teach that the Flood story is literally true at least in some particulars?

Anyway, you see what I am getting at, and I agree with you about the more mystical readings of the OT–it only makes sense (IMO).

I believe that when it comes to the Flood story there is a certain amount of leeway in interpretation. Yes it has a meaning within salvation history, but precisely what happened in an absolutely historical sense has not been determined by the Magisterium. In any event, there is a huge difference between these things in Genesis and what we find in the Gospels. The Gospel writers go out of their way to name places, times, dates, events and historical people so that future readers will be able to verify the events in question as historically true. This is not the case with the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. My own opinion is that there must be an historical core to this story since it is so widespread. However, the important point is the spiritual meaning of the story. There is some evidence for heavy sedimentation deposits that could only have been left by a large flood, but it didn’t necessarily have to cover to whole world. Perhaps just the local ‘world’ of the middle east. There were various pagan interpretations of this event (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) , but the Bible contains the correct reflection on it.

In any event, we Catholics read the Old covenant in light of the new. The basic tenets of the Catholic faith remain intact, whether or not there was a universal flood. It’s a misunderstanding of the Catholic faith to say that it all hangs on whether or not there was an ancient worldwide flood. This sort of thing is a problem from Protestants, but not for Catholics.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I believe that when it comes to the Flood story there is a certain amount of leeway in interpretation. Yes it has a meaning within salvation history, but precisely what happened in an absolutely historical sense has not been determined by the Magisterium. In any event, there is a huge difference between these things in Genesis and what we find in the Gospels. The Gospel writers go out of their way to name places, times, dates, events and historical people so that future readers will be able to verify the events in question as historically true. This is not the case with the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. My own opinion is that there must be an historical core to this story since it is so widespread. However, the important point is the spiritual meaning of the story. There is some evidence for heavy sedimentation deposits that could only have been left by a large flood, but it didn’t necessarily have to cover to whole world. Perhaps just the local ‘world’ of the middle east. There were various pagan interpretations of this event (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) , but the Bible contains the correct reflection on it.

In any event, we Catholics read the Old covenant in light of the new. The basic tenets of the Catholic faith remain intact, whether or not there was a universal flood. It’s a misunderstanding of the Catholic faith to say that it all hangs on whether or not there was an ancient worldwide flood. This sort of thing is a problem from Protestants, but not for Catholics.

Catholics women are not required to wear a veil during mass, although I personally find this to be a beautiful tradition since it emphasizes the great beauty that is being hidden. Woman are wonderful and modesty emphasizes their wonderfulness.

 

[larkin31]

…There is some evidence for heavy sedimentation deposits that could only have been left by a large flood, but it didn’t necessarily have to cover to whole world. Perhaps just the local ‘world’ of the middle east…

I have never heard of such evidence. To what are you referring? Please elaborate!

I am aware that Catholic Church does not require veiling. But Paul requested it. And some do follow his request. But let’s not discuss how veiling increases female allure for men. I trust that this was not what Paul was trying to suggest (although his sexual mores were neurotic, and this would actually fit). Or shall we make comparisons to Islamic veiling?

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I have never heard of such evidence. To what are you referring? Please elaborate!

I am aware that Catholic Church does not require veiling. But Paul requested it. And some do follow his request. But let’s not discuss how veiling increases female allure for men. I trust that this was not what Paul was trying to suggest (although his sexual mores were neurotic, and this would actually fit). Or shall we make comparisons to Islamic veiling?

I didn’t say it increased female allure. I said it emphasizes the dignity of their beauty, although it’s purpose is to (temporarily) hide that beauty so we can focus on the Mass. Moreover, we are talking about covering hair, not wearing some kind of islamic veil that covers the entire face except for the eyes.

Here is a link to an article about Leanord Woolley, an archeologist who discovered evidence for a middle eastern flood.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leonard_Woolley

I don’t know how accurate his findings were and have never really followed up on it, but please check it out yourself.

And here is a link to a page about Flood legends around the world: talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

 

[larkin31]

I didn’t say it increased female allure. I said it emphasizes the dignity of their beauty, although it’s purpose is to (temporarily) hide that beauty so we can focus on the Mass…

Who are “we”?

Yes, but your reply belies the contradiction in this: veils increase the mystery and allure (cf wedding veils), and are a means of control for men, and not women. The “we” above are men. And if “dignity” of beauty is what is emphasized by the covering, then of course men would benefit from them as well.

 

[larkin31]

Here is a link to an article about Leanord Woolley, an archeologist who discovered evidence for a middle eastern flood.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leonard_Woolley

I don’t know how accurate his findings were and have never really followed up on it, but please check it out yourself.

I read your encyclopedia entry.

Here is a conclusion from an assessment of Wolley’s discovery of flood evidence:

…The period 2900 to 2800 BCE is much too late to fit Woolley’s impressive flood remains at Ur, which must be dated at about 3500 BCE. This period does, however, fit well for the two earliest floods at Kish and a flood level at Shuruppak, and many scholars specializing in the ancient Near East have concluded that the Flood stories of cuneiform literature and the Bible find their ultimate origin in the event attested to by the remains at Kish and Shuruppak (Mallowan, 1964, pp. 62-82; Kramer, 1967, pp. 12-18; Woolley, 1955, pp. 16-17. Woolley’s findings were generally rejected by others, including his chief archaeological assistant, Mallowan).

WHAT ROLE HAS ALL THIS PLAYED IN THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE?
Most recent-creationists simply ignore the entire matter. Presumably, the reason is the one set forth by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris inThe Genesis Flood: the Mesopotamian flood remains fail to agree with the literalist view of a universal flood survived only by Noah and family (1961, pp. 109-111). The Mesopotamian strata, whether at Ur or at Kish and Suruppak, testify only to a local flood which clearly left behind survivors and significant cultural continuity. The Ur flood apparently did not even cover the entire mound of Ur. Moreover, fundamentalists have generally demonstrated little interest in the investigation of possible nonliteral explanations of biblical material.

At the other end of the spectrum, the scientific critics of the recent-creationists also have ignored the Mesopotamian materials. They are concerned primarily with answering the arguments of the recent-creationists, who themselves have not emphasized these nonbiblical materials. Generally, the approach of the scientific critics has been to demonstrate the scientific impossibility of recent-creationist claims rather than to attempt to supply alternative explanations of biblical materials.

from the National Center for Science education (an evolution and teaching site)
[The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education](from the National Center for Science education (an evolution and teaching site) The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education)

Woolley did find flood sediments, but they are too early for most Biblical possibilities, and much too local. The other flood evidence in the same valley comes from different times. And of course, no one denies that both the Euphrates and the Tigris were capable of major flooding. No one suggests that there have never been big floods that could turn into myths and cautionary tales.