Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[grannymh]

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

Thank you for checking back posts.

Since human genetic research is relatively new and involves humans with human heredity, it would be difficult to determine the genetic makeup of Adam who was the original human being without human heredity.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Source of the retelling of the deluge legend?

 

[grannymh]

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.

I answered the symbolic part earlier today. Here is what I wrote about science: 'As a basic evolutionist, with the exception of the human species, I support science.
What I am seeing in the younger generations is the inability to learn something that is beyond the limits of the scientific realm."

Due to the predominance of materialistic science, the only thing a person sees is bread which can only be matter according to what is learned in the lab. Therefore, it must be a symbol of something else. Going backwards, humans are only matter/material according to empirical research. Thus, Catholic teaching that Adam had a spiritual soul can’t be verified scientifically. Therefore he must be “just a representation of events” like the topic of the thread. If Adam and Eve aren’t real…

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[buffalo]

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.

But they can believe that life just magically popped up? And from where? The dirt? How is this any different?

And yes - Catholics understand they were immortal and lost this gift due to original sin.

What Church did you grow up in?

 

[buffalo]

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

See What Robert Ballard of Titanic Fame Discovered

and what made this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

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.

“We” are Catholic christians or anyone whose interest during mass should be on the liturgy of the word and Eucharist and not on anything else.

So what if the we above are men? The word “control” suggests coercion, but this is a recommendation, as you admit. Neither women nor men should dress at Mass in such a way as to draw attention to themselves. It is just a fact of nature that women have more distraction in their person then men, who are rather plain creatures. If this is sexist, so be it. Nature is sexist…against male humans. And you are right, men do benefit from women’s hair being covered. What’s wrong with that. There is no contradiction in what I’ve said, you simply have your mind set on a view of sexuality and personhood that is highly individualistic.

 

[larkin31]

“We” are Catholic christians or anyone whose interest during mass should be on the liturgy of the word and Eucharist and not on anything else.

So what if the we above are men? The word “control” suggests coercion, but this is a recommendation, as you admit. Neither women nor men should dress at Mass in such a way as to draw attention to themselves. It is just a fact of nature that women have more distraction in their person then men, who are rather plain creatures. If this is sexist, so be it. Nature is sexist…against male humans. And you are right, men do benefit from women’s hair being covered. What’s wrong with that. There is no contradiction in what I’ve said, you simply have your mind set on a view of sexuality and personhood that is highly individualistic.

What does “highly individualistic” mean?

And yes, you are espousing a sexist view, in several ways here. The greater question is, why? What is it about patriarchies that insist on this semi-neurotic need to both cover and enhance the beauty of women? And especially in terms of religious practice, where, one would think, one should not be toying around with sexual attraction through any method.

I have no idea what you mean about nature being sexist against men, nor are they “plain” as you say. The great sculptors of the west sure knew about the beauties of the male form. Do you not?

 

[larkin31]

But they can believe that life just magically popped up? And from where? The dirt? How is this any different?

Abiogenesis is not based on “magic.” This is very different from the Biblical account, unless you read it metaphorically (which I do).

I grew up in the United Church of Christ.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

What does “highly individualistic” mean?

And yes, you are espousing a sexist view, in several ways here. The greater question is, why? What is it about patriarchies that insist on this semi-neurotic need to both cover and enhance the beauty of women? And especially in terms of religious practice, where, one would think, one should not be toying around with sexual attraction through any method.

I have no idea what you mean about nature being sexist against men, nor are they “plain” as you say. The great sculptors of the west sure knew about the beauties of the male form. Do you not?

By highly individualistic, I mean atomistic. People do not only exist for themselves or for self-realization, they exist for others and depend for their existence on others. Modesty is an act of charity toward one’s fellow man. In certain settings it is innapropriate to draw attention to one self or one’s own beauty and some Catholic women make the free choice to aid the modesty and help the concentration of the men around them in Church, by covering* their hair*. Paul was not trying to suppress women with this suggestion. If you read the relevant passage you’ll see that he complements long beautiful hair.

Here is a picture of the OPPRESSIVE “VEIL” your so concerned about. scrollpublishing.com/store/media/1954-Catholic-baptism.jpg
I think you’ll agree that it’s quite different from this: photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/Content/muslim-women-GBPEPT030-sw.jpg

I was being half serious with the sexist against men thing, of course God created the male and female form beautiful, but there are obvious differences and I don’t think I have to explain it to you.

 

[larkin31]

By highly individualistic, I mean atomistic. People do not only exist for themselves or for self-realization, they exist for others and depend for their existence on others. Modesty is an act of charity toward one’s fellow man. In certain settings it is innapropriate to draw attention to one self or one’s own beauty and some Catholic women make the free choice to aid the modesty and help the concentration of the men around them in Church, by covering* their hair*. Paul was not trying to suppress women with this suggestion. If you read the relevant passage you’ll see that he complements long beautiful hair.

I am quite familiar with the passage. And, Paul most certainly wants to keep women in a subordinate position in the church relative to men.

I was being half serious with the sexist against men thing, of course God created the male and female form beautiful, but there are obvious differences and I don’t think I have to explain it to you.

I would like an explanation, if you would care too. I have no idea what you could mean by claiming that women are more beautiful than men. Honestly, I don’t see how that is possible except as a form of bias from a heterosexual male who finds them personally more attractive. I like women more, too, by the way, but I would never make your aesthetic judgment that they are more beautiful, nor that they should be covered more than men. Unless, of course, I were a weak male easily distracted by female hair–which is nigh an obsession if one can’t pray or meditate in its presence. But this is true of some men, and I honestly think Paul had sexual repression issues (revealed in his texts).

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I would like an explanation, if you would care too. I have no idea what you could mean by claiming that women are more beautiful than men. Honestly, I don’t see how that is possible except as a form of bias from a heterosexual male who finds them personally more attractive. I like women more, too, by the way, but I would never make your aesthetic judgment that they are more beautiful, nor that they should be covered more than men. Unless, of course, I were a weak male easily distracted by female hair–which is nigh an obsession if one can’t pray or meditate in its presence. But this is true of some men, and I honestly think Paul had sexual repression issues (revealed in his texts).

Alright. It is a fact of human experience and a scientific fact, that men are more visually oriented then women.womens-homepage.com/guys-visually-stimulated.html oprah.com/omagazine/Dr-Phils-MANual/6This fact is relatively uncontroversial. Of course there are individual exceptions to this trend but it is true in general. At the same time, the female form has many qualities (overall shape, breasts, hair, etc) that a man’s eyes are instantly drawn to and even entranced by. This makes it difficult in certain settings to keep one’s focus where it ought to be. Specifically, during the Mass one’s focus is on God. Now of course, the rules of modesty differ per situation. For example, it would be unreasonable to go to the beach and expect people to be dressed as if they were at Church. However, Mass is not the place for drawing attention to one’s personal beauty. That goes for men as well of course, but since women are not (for the most part) hardwired in the same way as men, the mode that modesty take tends to differ.

You said you would “never make [my] aesthetic judgment that they are more beautiful…” Well why not? Are you an aesthetic relativist? I am not. Certainty many things are a matter of taste, but I don’t think all things are. As for people who are distracted by a woman’s hair being weak…well I don’t know. Personally, I am not at all disturbed by such things because it seems to me to that in modern culture with all its emphasis on bodily beauty that a person just has to adjust and not be entranced by every woman he sees. Its a matter of sexual and maturity and this is a difference between of our age and previous ages. However, some people don’t see it that way and are incredibly sensitive to visual stimulation. I am not in a position to judge other men’s strengths and weaknesses. What I don’t understand is why it offends you that some women choose to cover their hair during Mass. Isn’t that their choice, not yours?

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Source of the retelling of the deluge legend?

Here’s a link to a bunch of middle eastern and near eastern flood legends. talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#NearEast (go to the top of the page and click on Near East.

Just a pagan religions have origin stories (not true “creation” stories since none of them are creation ex nihilo) which reflect their pagan worldview, they also have flood stories which reflect a pagan interpretation of the world. The Bible contains the theologically correct reflection on these events (the Creation and the Deluge). But I don’t think that in either the case the Biblical author was trying to get across a comprehensive history of the sort we would recognize today.

 

[larkin31]

Alright. It is a fact of human experience and a scientific fact, that men are more visually oriented then women.womens-homepage.com/guys-visually-stimulated.html oprah.com/omagazine/Dr-Phils-MANual/6This fact is relatively uncontroversial.

Thanks for the links, but a Dr. Phil article for Oprah and a woman’s home page (unattributed, with misspellings) are not all that persuasive. They claim that men are more visual, but this is not the question (nor do I dispute it). My point was that it is false to claim that a woman’s form is more beautiful than a man’s. My point concerned aesthetics, and I used this word. Again, what you are claiming is that you (men) like women and need them covered up to worship better. And my point is that covering them up is a neurotically repressed way of both covering and enhancing their beauty, and what would be best would be to let them alone and learn to look at one’s feet if one is distracted by female beauty.

 

[grannymh]

Well – it sounds to me from some of the preceding discussions, that people today are real human beings. For that to be true, we had to be the result of procreation by generations from our ancestors who would have had to be real human beings. This means that the two persons who were our original parents had to be two true, real human beings. Just like the Catholic Church teaches – Adam and Eve are real.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

My point was that it is false to claim that a woman’s form is more beautiful than a man’s. My point concerned aesthetics, and I used this word. Again, what you are claiming is that you (men) like women and need them covered up to worship better. And my point is that covering them up is a neurotically repressed way of both covering and enhancing their beauty, and what would be best would be to let them alone and learn to look at one’s feet if one is distracted by female beauty.

I think you are making broad, sweeping statements when you say “you men like women and need them covered up to worship better.” I personally have never needed this, and none of the women in my family have ever worn a chapel veil or head covering of any kind. Indeed, this practice is extremely rare in the modern Church. However, I am not offended or suspicious when I occasionally see it, as you seem to be.

Also, I do not agree that covering women up is a neurotically repressed way of both covering and enhancing beauty. This is too broad a statement. Certainly it it possible to enhance beauty by artfully enhancing mystery (as in this example: 3.bp.blogspot.com/_YmtUiFPVmfQ/R5QP8155EfI/AAAAAAAAAJA/QoBy1XFeAJQ/s400/Visor+Veil.jpg, however, that is not the purpose of chapel veils, which in my opinion are usually pretty unattractive in any event. veiledglory.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/windowslivewritertheveilsihavewornkerchiefs-7281eyelet-veil-bk2.jpg

Chapel veils, when they are worn at all, are worn only at mass. If we men have contrived chapel veils as a way of oppressing “our” women, then we suck at the whole oppression thing, since unlike those Muslimsz.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/B/f/MuslimWomenTripoli.jpg , we can only “oppress” our wives once a week for an hour.

I happen to agree that Islam is totally neurotic about sex, offering a pornographic heaven and a puritanical earth to its male believers. You can probably find individual examples of Catholics who are “neurotically repressed” with respect to sex, but that is not the norm or
ideal of Catholicism.

 

[larkin31]

I think you are making broad, sweeping statements when you say “you men like women and need them covered up to worship better.” I personally have never needed this, and none of the women in my family have ever worn a chapel veil or head covering of any kind. Indeed, this practice is extremely rare in the modern Church. However, I am not offended or suspicious when I occasionally see it, as you seem to be.

Also, I do not agree that covering women up is a neurotically repressed way of both covering and enhancing beauty. This is too broad a statement. Certainly it it possible to enhance beauty by artfully enhancing mystery (as in this example: 3.bp.blogspot.com/_YmtUiFPVmfQ/R5QP8155EfI/AAAAAAAAAJA/QoBy1XFeAJQ/s400/Visor+Veil.jpg, however, that is not the purpose of chapel veils, which in my opinion are usually pretty unattractive in any event. veiledglory.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/windowslivewritertheveilsihavewornkerchiefs-7281eyelet-veil-bk2.jpg

Chapel veils, when they are worn at all, are worn only at mass. If we men have contrived chapel veils as a way of oppressing “our” women, then we suck at the whole oppression thing, since unlike those Muslimsz.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/B/f/MuslimWomenTripoli.jpg , we can only “oppress” our wives once a week for an hour.

I happen to agree that Islam is totally neurotic about sex, offering a pornographic heaven and a puritanical earth to its male believers. You can probably find individual examples of Catholics who are “neurotically repressed” with respect to sex, but that is not the norm or
ideal of Catholicism.

I was generalizing, yes, which I freely admit. But I was using the words and reasons for veiling that were given to me here by Catholics: to cover the distracting attractiveness of females. Then I was given the reason that they are more beautiful and attractive than men, which I objected to on aesthetic (and sexist) grounds. So I have simply been responding to the material given me, but I also admit that I find sexual denial and repression fairly evident in orthodox Christian teaching, and I find the soul-body duality of Christianity a neurotic point of view. And then there is Paul, who doesn’t help in this category. Sexual sin–as an argument for why entire cities were destroyed by God and why souls can burn in hell forever–strikes me as neurotically fixated on fear of the unusual and uncontained. And to suggest that ejaculation without chance of procreation is a sin is just more of that neurotic fixation on controlling deep urges rooted in bodily pleasure.

 

[StAnastasia]

See What Robert Ballard of Titanic Fame Discovered

and what made this?

Erosion.

 

[buffalo]

Erosion.

of? how long did it take?

 

[larkin31]

of? how long did it take?

Try starting with a google search, and read 10 non-religious documents. You’ll get the gist of the estimates.

Wikipedia’s science entries are quite thorough and up-to-date—don’t be afraid to start there.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

So I have simply been responding to the material given me, but I also admit that I find sexual denial and repression fairly evident in orthodox Christian teaching, and I find the soul-body duality of Christianity a neurotic point of view. And then there is Paul, who doesn’t help in this category. Sexual sin–as an argument for why entire cities were destroyed by God and why souls can burn in hell forever–strikes me as neurotically fixated on fear of the unusual and uncontained. And to suggest that ejaculation without chance of procreation is a sin is just more of that neurotic fixation on controlling deep urges rooted in bodily pleasure.

This Is a Long Response and I Apologize

I think there’s a lot of merit in what you’re saying when it comes to soul-body duality. The proper way to see the body and soul is that they are two aspects of one subject, the individual human person (who is always some particular person, John Smith Jr for example, and not just an instantiation of abstract “humanness.”) A soul without a body is not a whole person (which is why there is a Resurrection of the dead at the end of time.)Both the Gnostic-Manichean view (that the soul is good and the body bad) and the Cartesian view (that the soul is the ghost that runs the fleshy machine) are incorrect and in conflict with Catholicism proper. However inasmuch as the spiritual part of man transcends (although it also participates in) his physical part, and inasmuch as his spiritual faculties (intellect, free will) are what make him a moral being, the spirit is higher in the ontological order.

Now I think that the Church has always struggled with the Manichean demon, indeed, most of the popular heresies in the history of the Church have been some form of Gnosis or Manicheanism. The Church has ruled against this sort of thing in councils, but defeating an error on paper doesn’t mean you’ve really removed it from people’s hearts. Augustine (who was himself a former Manichean,) was very hostile to sex after his conversion and held (I believe) that concupiscence made sex inherently sinful and that sex was the original sin… positions the Church rejected by the way.

Now if people are body and soul and Creation is good, a number of things follow. 1) The body and its natural functions are good and meaningful and 2) What we do with our bodies is not irrelevant, but may have a spiritual dimension as well. But if we have free will and it is possible for us to choose evil, then it is possible to do evil with our bodies. We cannot say “Well, it’s just my body” as if the body were a vacuum cleaner that we happen to be operating. One’s body is oneself just as one’s soul is oneself. They can’t be separated except by death. If I discipline my body (by forcing myself to go running or by refusing a tasty snack that I don’t really need) I am also disciplining my spirit (in this case, the will.)

Having established then that what we do with our bodies is, or can be, spiritually, morally important, let’s take a look the sex instinct which you feel we Catholics are unfair to. Rather than write a long essay here in the forum, I’ll include a link to C.S. Lewis discussion of sexual sin, which I think really sums up the issue well. philosophyforlife.com/mc15.htm

I realize I haven’t responded to everything you said, but I want to establish first that Catholicism is not “anti-sex” as you imagine. It is the misuse of sex which is anti-sex.