P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
Did you guys know that the royal family- if you look up their family tree that they have documented, it starts with adam and eve.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Not really. The devil can possess creatures.
**Exorcism on the Rise? **
Code:
**Dioceses Boosting Number of Those Fighting the Devil**
G
grannymh
Guest
Small correction.
The Catholic Church considers that the **theory **of evolution is a possible truth when it is applied to living organisms from plants to non-human animals. The Catholic Church does not accept as truth, the various theories of evolution (including polygenism) which are applied to human nature and its origin. This is because the spiritual principle of human nature does not evolve from the human material/physical anatomy. The spiritual principle (soul) is created directly by God. It is because of its spiritual soul, that at conception the human made of matter becomes a living person.
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I do not consider that the person(s) who wrote down the first three chapters of Genesis was an idiot who thought snakes could talk and organic fruit gave a magical zest to one’s diet. In addition, I don’t believe that most of the ancient Hebrews were equally as dumb. However, I am not so sure about contemporary readers.
When one considers that at the time of writing those important three chapters of Genesis, there were a variety of peoples, cultures, nations, races, religions, hair colors, etc., Common sense would say that the first three chapters would have reported that variety and then thrown in the idea that the author and his tribe were the best and everyone else was…you know, not equal in nature. Instead, the author is the first person to claim the unity and equality of humankind. He did this by saying correctly that all humanity was equal in human nature because all people descended directly from the one, real founder, Adam.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have heard about Ann’s book, but have not read it. However, for a long time, I have wondered why Adam and Eve are considered an impossible human bottleneck.
Recently, I was in your neck of the woods at the Natural History Museum. At one of the displays, I saw that the word “human” is applied to archaic beings based on homologies which show a strong relationship between species, including the human one. Thus, the use of Homo is one way to view species from the material/physical position of science.
The reality is that at some point in the huge time frame of pre-history, a species existed which was more than a rotting anatomy that makes a great fossil…at least according to Catholicism. That “species” is our own. What makes us peerless is that our nature is an unique unification of both the material world (domain of natural science) *and *the spiritual world (domain of God the Creator).
Or maybe that species did not exist before history but at the exact point of the beginning of human history as proposed in the first three chapters of Genesis.
So now I wonder why people think of an Adam and Eve bottleneck which is a reduced population…reduced from what? Obviously, to account for the nature differences between humans and closely related animals, there is the possibility (different from probability) that two people actually founded humankind.
G
grannymh
Guest
Your school is not the only one to follow some very bad theology proposed by some Catholics who wanted the Church to change Divine Revelation. Does the name Matthew Fox, not the actor but the teacher and writer, ring a bell? FYI, there are Catholics defending our lovable first parents on the upper levels of Catholic discourse.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Yes, therein lies the problem. Bad theology by some Catholics. Considering the embracing of a literal Adam by the church some have had to do theological gymnastics. I think the church has an open mind and considers new revelations of science but that has not destroyed true conviction.
H
Hunter24
Guest
I don’t agree with that statement so that argument won’t work against me. It’s arrogant to beleave we humans are the only beings with both a physical body and a soul. Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones I know of that beleave this.
G
Gaber
Guest
It seems to me that “change Divine Revelation” is a bit strong. I would take it that as we grow, we can see greater detail and meaning. Even Jesus spoke in Parables that had at least three levels of meaning, and on top of that there is Mark 4:33.34. LOTS of wiggle room there, eh?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I actually agree with you given some qualifications that are written into my Saint of the week article.
G
grannymh
Guest
The concept that human nature is both spiritual and material has been around for ages and is not meant to work against an individual.
Some people can be arrogant. Some people can be curious.
The concept of spiritual and corporeal takes many forms. Some are as simple as the recognition that there is something spiritual (supernatural) that can be known.
G
grannymh
Guest
This is where knowledge of how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth can be very useful.It seems to me that “change Divine Revelation” is a bit strong. I would take it that as we grow, we can see greater detail and meaning. Even Jesus spoke in Parables that had at least three levels of meaning, and on top of that there is Mark 4:33.34. LOTS of wiggle room there, eh?
Divine Revelation, which was first recorded in the first three chapters of Genesis, was completed in Jesus Christ. Thus, there is no new public Divine Revelation coming from natural science. Even though Divine Revelation is completed, it has not been made totally explicit. For this reason, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (Chapter 14, Gospel of John). It is the responsibility of the Catholic Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, to grasp the full significance of Divine Revelation over the course of centuries. This has been done through the protocol of major Church Councils.
As expected, greater details of the origin of human nature, original sin, and the salvific mission of Jesus have been clarified through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Yet, the basic message of God’s Divine Revelation has not and cannot change.
Currently, there are some Catholics who want to update the foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church so that they agree with various theories of natural science which are currently popular.
The reality is that natural science can only deal with the reality of material/physical anatomies. On the other hand, in addition to the human anatomy, Divine Revelation teaches the creation of the spiritual soul. Obviously, modern natural science theories regarding human nature cannot explore the spiritual world. This proper limitation has led some interpreters to propose that the spiritual soul emerges from some place within the material anatomy. This theory directly opposes Divine Revelation that the soul is directly created by God. What is spiritual cannot evolve from what is material/physical.
For some, not all, Catholics it is important to personally fit in with the “elite” modern way of looking at life. In order to do this, man’s origin has to be downgraded substantially. Here is where some people want to change the Catholic doctrine of Adam and Eve (monogenism) to a symbol or a parable. This change does not only involve details, it involves a total change of human origin (knocking out the unity of humanity) and therefore in essence it affects doctrines all the way to the mission of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church, under the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, knows that people cannot tamper with the Divine Revelation of the one human founder who committed the actual Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Excellent contribution to the discussion. It is unfortunate as well that many here are referring to Genesis as a parable. It is not. Jesus spoke of OT persons, he also spoke in parables to convey a message. Never did he turn his talks on Genesis into parables which he had all the opportunity to do. The parables of Jesus, known to scholars, do not include Genesis.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
How does that change the lineage of Christ that the church embraces as truth?
G
Gaber
Guest
This is where knowledge of how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth can be very useful.(snip)
I agree with Johnnyjones. This post of yours, Grannymh, is excellent, and rates you, as is usual in my eyes, as one of the most even and level headed advocates of what I perceive as orthodox Roman Catholicism. I have nothing but admiration for how you explicate things, and such clarity is rare on here, imho. Some would use the doctrines of the Church as bludgeons, not simply statements which bear their own authority in context and by manner of delivery. I always enjoy reading your posts. I just hope that there are no penalties for speaking charitably of someone in glowing terms as there obviously are for making uncharitable ones. But I’m not someone who will compliment a person behind their back. OK, I do that too. but not without being direct about it as well.
I completely agree on a few points, maybe more. And I am not saying what I say in order to be contradictory or attempt to change anyone’s faith. So while I had for many decades almost precisely the viewpoint you describe, though not perhaps as consciously or eloquently. That was well and good until something pulled the rug out from under my perceptions of what it is to be human. From that point on, I necessarily had a radically different take on things which only over time and with great pains in critical thinking was I eventually to have mental peace with, though the peace was already present, only not eloquble. So my “take” on things is ultimately neither of the positions you describe so well.
As far as I can see, even if Mankind evolved en masse and we had many parents as a Race, the unity of mankind would not be compromised, and neither would anything pertinent to the “salvific” mission of Jesus. Why? Because the lineage of Soul, in the sense that we are made in the image and likeness of God, is what obtains, not biological lineage. And that might very well be more easily explained and Occam razored with one pair theologically and biologically, but in the actuality of “creation,” I don’t think it matters-- given the ground plan, one might say, of the nature of what might be called for educational purposes, “human awareness.” So while the story serves, it is neither, imo, theologically nor biologically necessary in the two forms presented in Genesis.
And while the Garden story is most often, as far as I can see, one that is taken as being about physical and soul origin, it is, as well, I think, one of psychological origin. Especially that. It is so in that the stories can be interpreted as either and ascent from mere animal awareness, or a final stage of descent from what was a far higher human state, as might be pointed to by some aspects of archaeology. In either case, on the level I’m referring to, the story is a symbol of the dawning of a particular kind of awareness in humans as distinct from actual potential.
That awareness, our perceived inheritance, is the common place mental position of assuming that subject/object perception, and the linear low level logic that naturally goes with it, is all there is, at least as what we can expect for the majority of humans, ever. I don’t think that is the case. I’m, in fact sure it is not. But how we got to this level needed to be explained, or remembered, somehow, as a prompt for birthing some traditions (there are many Garden stories in many cultures) to look for something intrinsically within ourselves that is greater than what we are seemingly heir to. And that necessarily includes “spiritual” origins.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
What is it then that prevented God (Jesus) from telling us our “true” origins?" Much complexity is spoken in the scriptures. Jesus said incomprehensible things to the Hebrew people. That he was a man , but God too. Why reference Genesis as simply what it was if there was really another meaning to it? The nature of man is critical and Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Do you think that telling men they came about in a different way would be more difficult compared to telling them a man is God or eating the flesh of a person is acceptable?I agree with Johnnyjones. This post of yours, Grannymh, is excellent, and rates you, as is usual in my eyes, as one of the most even and level headed advocates of what I perceive as orthodox Roman Catholicism. I have nothing but admiration for how you explicate things, and such clarity is rare on here, imho. Some would use the doctrines of the Church as bludgeons, not simply statements which bear their own authority in context and by manner of delivery. I always enjoy reading your posts. I just hope that there are no penalties for speaking charitably of someone in glowing terms as there obviously are for making uncharitable ones. But I’m not someone who will compliment a person behind their back. OK, I do that too. but not without being direct about it as well.
I completely agree on a few points, maybe more. And I am not saying what I say in order to be contradictory or attempt to change anyone’s faith. So while I had for many decades almost precisely the viewpoint you describe, though not perhaps as consciously or eloquently. That was well and good until something pulled the rug out from under my perceptions of what it is to be human. From that point on, I necessarily had a radically different take on things which only over time and with great pains in critical thinking was I eventually to have mental peace with, though the peace was already present, only not eloquble. So my “take” on things is ultimately neither of the positions you describe so well.
As far as I can see, even if Mankind evolved en masse and we had many parents as a Race, the unity of mankind would not be compromised, and neither would anything pertinent to the “salvific” mission of Jesus. Why? Because the lineage of Soul, in the sense that we are made in the image and likeness of God, is what obtains, not biological lineage. And that might very well be more easily explained and Occam razored with one pair theologically and biologically, but in the actuality of “creation,” I don’t think it matters-- given the ground plan, one might say, of the nature of what might be called for educational purposes, “human awareness.” So while the story serves, it is neither, imo, theologically nor biologically necessary in the two forms presented in Genesis.
And while the Garden story is most often, as far as I can see, one that is taken as being about physical and soul origin, it is, as well, I think, one of psychological origin. Especially that. It is so in that the stories can be interpreted as either and ascent from mere animal awareness, or a final stage of descent from what was a far higher human state, as might be pointed to by some aspects of archaeology. In either case, on the level I’m referring to, the story is a symbol of the dawning of a particular kind of awareness in humans as distinct from actual potential.
That awareness, our perceived inheritance, is the common place mental position of assuming that subject/object perception, and the linear low level logic that naturally goes with it, is all there is, at least as what we can expect for the majority of humans, ever. I don’t think that is the case. I’m, in fact sure it is not. But how we got to this level needed to be explained, or remembered, somehow, as a prompt for birthing some traditions (there are many Garden stories in many cultures) to look for something intrinsically within ourselves that is greater than what we are seemingly heir to. And that necessarily includes “spiritual” origins.
We were made instantly by God.
G
Gaber
Guest
How many direct quotes do we have from Him? Even counting ones not accepted in the Catholic canon? Precious few. In my estimation, actually, He did. Too much. And it became due to some zealous proselytizing something that which while had meaning as direct communication (Mark 4:33,34) lost its potency as it became a popularized religion. Paul understood it, but was spread too thin. So it seems to me that the Church itself became a parable, including the life of Jesus, in that it became book learning as distinct from Insight sponsored by the Divine Adept who gave the Original Revelation in our tradition.
the idea of instantenaity is, I think, skewed as far as “creation” in that what can be made new in an instant is the state of awareness one can identify as. This is experiencible, and refers, I find, to the radically new perspective available to one as a result of transformation, not of original creation. That is fait accompli, always already the case. Paul may be an example of such an instance, the “scales” of duality falling from his eyes as judgement is transcended and attention lives at the fulcrum, not one or other of the pans of the scale. The abillity to discriminate not only does not disappear, then, but is enhanced by a radical imparitaily that only sees more clearly and from a finally Universal standpoint.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Check your “red letter” Jesus words bible for help. Numerous profound and complex quotes that address even the nature of God which is not exactly lite table talk. The awesome nuances of the trinity but no evolution of man from Christ. The argument that it was “too hard” for understanding falls flat in the face or trinitarian discussions to the “common man” along with further spoken mysteries.
G
grannymh
Guest
I lean from “contradictory” viewpoints when they are presented fairly as you have done.
Thank you.
Most of the time, I learn that I need to go deeper into the issue. Curiosity is a driving force in my life. I now find I have subsequent posts to read in order to understand the present conversation. But before I do that, may I offer Romans, Chapter Five, for your consideration.
G
Gaber
Guest
Those trinitarian ideas are not so difficult as you seem to make them. They can be very useful. They are, imo, even addressed in a way in non Christian faiths. And it is interesting that you mention the “red letter” editions, as I was looking at some just recently. And I’m sorry, did I seem to you to say that I thought that what Jesus said about anything is less than profound? Or lite table talk, like beer or unfatted yogurt? I sure think that about some of the interpretations they are given, but the Original, as far as we know it? Not hardly. That is silly.
- Status