Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[onenow1]

John 1​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him, and without him was, {not anything made that was made.

" All we need to know there was a beginning for man on earth."

onenow1

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz1sgB1siBO

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Interestingly, when one considers the theological movement to update some Catholic doctrines so that they affirm some scientific theories, the “myth” is not necessarily untruth. What happens is that the truth of Divine Revelation is watered down or replaced by incomplete truths which sidestep Catholic doctrines. For example, humans, as their consciousness emerged, became aware that there was evil. Unfortunately, there are a few people who will not recognize that statements like that omit Original Sin and the need for reconciliation with God.

Having now looked into this I can saw with some confidence that the above is simply not true. Your worries are unfounded and unnecessary.

 

[buffalo]

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-text

Welcome to the family, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

WE HUMANS like to see ourselves as special, at the very pinnacle of all life. That makes us keen to keep a safe distance between ourselves and related species that threaten our sense of uniqueness. Unfortunately, the evidence can sometimes make that difficult.
Decades ago, when the primatologist Jane Goodall told anthropologist Louis Leakey that chimps used sticks to scoop up termites, he wrote: “Now we must redefine tool, redefine man or accept chimpanzees as human.” The news this month that humans and Neanderthals interbred (see “Revealed: the cavemen that live on in all of us”) presents us with a similar conundrum - only this one lies far closer to home. Must we now consider Neanderthals as one of our own, another twig on the branch called Homo sapiens?

more…

 

[grannymh]

Having now looked into this I can saw with some confidence that the above is simply not true. Your worries are unfounded and unnecessary.

Thank you.

Because I am still researching various conundrums about our first parents, I would truly like to know what was said which gave you confidence. Since you have looked into the situation, would you be so kind as to relay to me what was said about the reality of Adam. There are many places where Catholics are knowledgeable about the deeper issues of our Faith. Thus, I would really like to know how they word or put into their own words, the basic Catholic doctrines surrounding human nature’s origin.

Your consideration of my request is appreciated.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thank you.

Because I am still researching various conundrums about our first parents, I would truly like to know what was said which gave you confidence. Since you have looked into the situation, would you be so kind as to relay to me what was said about the reality of Adam. There are many places where Catholics are knowledgeable about the deeper issues of our Faith. Thus, I would really like to know how they word or put into their own words, the basic Catholic doctrines surrounding human nature’s origin.

Your consideration of my request is appreciated.

Happy to!

My starting point, now, is Domning who is regards the Adam and Eve story as non-historical but quite cleary does not minimize Original Sin nor man’s need for reconciliation with God. In his monograph (with theologian coauthor) he cites other post Vatican II authors who similarly (though for different reasons) regard the story as myth, not history, but also hold to the notion of Original Sin and the need for reconciliation with God.

How Domning’s concept of original selfishness fits with the more traditional doctrine of original sin is the topic of discussion here.

 

[grannymh]

Happy to!

My starting point, now, is Domning who is regards the Adam and Eve story as non-historical but quite cleary does not minimize Original Sin nor man’s need for reconciliation with God. In his monograph (with theologian coauthor) he cites other post Vatican II authors who similarly (though for different reasons) regard the story as myth, not history, but also hold to the notion of Original Sin and the need for reconciliation with God.

How Domning’s concept of original selfishness fits with the more traditional doctrine of original sin is the topic of discussion here.

From the first link: “Perhaps most widely accepted among Catholic theologians today is the idea of Piet Schoonenberg, S.J., and others that “original sin” imposes itself on each human being as the evil influence of the sinful social situations into which we all are born.”

This is a good example of sidestepping the original issue of Original Sin as taught by Catholicism. It is an indirect attack on personal free will which is an essential part of Original Sin – which by the way is not an evil influence but an actual act of an actual person according to Catholicism.

Re: Changing Original Sin to the creative idea that it “imposes itself on each human being as the evil influence of the sinful social situations into which we all are born.”

Bingo! My point is made.

From the first link: “Substitutes have of course been offered.”

Bingo! My point is made.

From the first link: “A Dual Puzzle”

Puzzle is so true. Why? Because the evolutionary theory cannot address the Spiritual Soul directly created by God as taught by the Catholic Church.

From the first Link: “The juxtaposition of these firmly established scientific facts suggests a way to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in evolutionary terms.”

Bingo! My point is made.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

From the first link: “Perhaps most widely accepted among Catholic theologians today is the idea of Piet Schoonenberg, S.J., and others that “original sin” imposes itself on each human being as the evil influence of the sinful social situations into which we all are born.”

This is a good example of sidestepping the original issue of Original Sin as taught by Catholicism. It is an indirect attack on personal free will which is an essential part of Original Sin – which by the way is not an evil influence but an actual act of an actual person according to Catholicism.

Re: Changing Original Sin to the creative idea that it “imposes itself on each human being as the evil influence of the sinful social situations into which we all are born.”

Bingo! My point is made.

From the first link: “Substitutes have of course been offered.”

Bingo! My point is made.

From the first link: “A Dual Puzzle”

Puzzle is so true. Why? Because the evolutionary theory cannot address the Spiritual Soul directly created by God as taught by the Catholic Church.

From the first Link: “The juxtaposition of these firmly established scientific facts suggests a way to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in evolutionary terms.”

Bingo! My point is made.

Interestingly, Schoonenberg is not offering an evolutionary theory of orignal sin. Domning uses him more as an example of how the evolutionary model offers a better explanation. Schoonenberg is much closer to Rousseau in that he is offering a theory that original sin is one of immitation. Note that his theory is compatible with the literal reading of Adam and Eve.

But he doesn’t minimize Original sin nor say that we don’t need reconciliation with God, which was your main claim that I was disputing.

So while you have found an example of someone offering a weak theory of original sin, you have not offered an argument against the evolutionary model nor for the literal reading of Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

Interestingly, Schoonenberg is not offering an evolutionary theory of orignal sin. Domning uses him more as an example of how the evolutionary model offers a better explanation. Schoonenberg is much closer to Rousseau in that he is offering a theory that original sin is one of immitation. Note that his theory is compatible with the literal reading of Adam and Eve.

But he doesn’t minimize Original sin nor say that we don’t need reconciliation with God, which was your main claim that I was disputing.

So while you have found an example of someone offering a weak theory of original sin, you have not offered an argument against the evolutionary model nor for the literal reading of Adam and Eve.

May I respectfully point out that I am offering the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Clarification for those interested in some of the surrounding Catholic doctrines of Original Sin: Original Sin is transmitted with human nature by propagation, not by imitation. Source: Council of Trent

Note to readers.
Obviously, Cardinal Pell is at the mercy of Nicolas Perpitch the author of the article in post 1. Perpitch chose the comments. Nonetheless, the Cardinal’s general comments are common in some form. For me, the article is a wake-up call that it is time for Catholics to go deeper into discussions about our Faith. I love science and the evolution model fascinates me, but, at the same time, we need to defend our beliefs when certain scientific theories intersect with Catholic doctrines. Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

May I respectfully point out that I am offering the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Clarification for those interested in some of the surrounding Catholic doctrines of Original Sin: Original Sin is transmitted with human nature by propagation, not by imitation. Source: Council of Trent

Which, interestingly, is consistent with the evolutionary model.

But may I respetfully remind you that your claim was not merely that you were presenting the doctrince of the Catholic Church but that theories that held Adam and Eve to mythical were in some way diluting Original Sin or the need for reconciliation with God.

 

[grannymh]

Which, interestingly, is consistent with the evolutionary model.

But may I respetfully remind you that your claim was not merely that you were presenting the doctrince of the Catholic Church but that theories that held Adam and Eve to mythical were in some way diluting Original Sin or the need for reconciliation with God.

Please see post 275 above.

The Catholic position is that Adam and Eve are real people.

The Catholic position is that the Original Sin is an actual real event. It takes an actually real person to personally commit an actual real sin.

The Catholic position is that some figurative language is in the first three chapters of Genesis. To know what is which, one starts with Catholic teaching. This is a tad different from guessing on one’s own what new theory can match contemporary opinions.

As for research based on the evolution model, some of that has already been discussed above. The evidence presented in this type of back-calculation research does not warrant the universal exclusion of two, real, sole founders of the human species. Obviously, people can interpret published research in all kinds of ways.

 

[grannymh]

From post 277 by granny

“Clarification for those interested in some of the surrounding Catholic doctrines of Original Sin: Original Sin is transmitted with human nature by propagation, not by imitation. Source: Council of Trent.”

Which, interestingly, is consistent with the evolutionary model.

The theory of evolution deals with the material anatomy. And I am grateful for the medical benefits coming from this theory.

Original Sin is a matter of the spiritual soul. The spiritual soul does not evolve by evolution of the material anatomy. It is directly created by God.

 

[itullian]

so we’ve given up on A and E.

Now what’s next.

 

[grannymh]

so we’ve given up on A and E.

Now what’s next.

As my brother would say about your “we’ve” – So, you have a mouse in your pocket. Who reads interesting articles about mythology and Adam and Eve?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

so we’ve given up on A and E.

Now what’s next.

What’s next is a much more beautiful tale.
The story of evolution of the human body, the story that God wanted and is a marvel to listen to. But better than the ribs of Adam and the clay which was blowed upon.
And then, must enter our Faith that we must proclaim to the World: that the Human Soul was created by God and incarnated into an animal chosen by God.
And that Soul is Me, and that Soul forced Animal to evolve into the Body we have today.

Boy, when I listen to the story of Evolution, I praise the Lord and See the many wonders of Creation. And when I see the scientist amazed at how things happened and how animals evolved, I am seeing in them a religious wonder at the Intelligence of the Creator.

Adam and Eve did not die. They are my favorite people in the Old Testament. Tey teach us about finite and Infinite, about how Go found beauty in this World, about the relationship between God and Man, how sin is inside the Human Soul (there are no goodies and badies) we have the good and bad inside us, and the mistery of suffering. It is a moving tale and in no way it is to be thrown out by evolution.
Evolution is evolution.
The Bible is the Bible.
God is one and is not contradicting Himself talking in both sides: it is us who have a problem of glasses, not seeing where He is.

 

[grannymh]

Boy, when I listen to the story of Evolution, I praise the Lord and See the many wonders of Creation. And when I see the scientist amazed at how things happened and how animals evolved, I am seeing in them a religious wonder at the Intelligence of the Creator.

Yes, the wonders of Creation are meant to lead us to God. God gave us the gift of beauty as a hope for the beauty of eternal love in His presence.

 

[grannymh]

Boy, when I listen to the story of Evolution, I praise the Lord and See the many wonders of Creation. And when I see the scientist amazed at how things happened and how animals evolved, I am seeing in them a religious wonder at the Intelligence of the Creator.

Yes, the wonders of Creation are meant to lead us to God. God gave us the gift of beauty as a hope for the beauty of eternal love in His presence.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, the wonders of Creation are meant to lead us to God. God gave us the gift of beauty as a hope for the beauty of eternal love in His presence.

God, out of love, created Adam as the founder of a species so unique that it is peerless. The uniqueness of a human person is divinely revealed in the first three chapters of Genesis. We learn, not how our blood and guts were assembled; rather, we learn that our nature is an unification of the material domain of earth and the spiritual domain of God. This beautiful nature of Adam, both soul and body, was created in harmony which enabled Adam to walk with God in the harmony of friendship.

As a creature, Adam lived in submission to his Creator. Thus, Adam’s nature is seen as good. He had not scorned his Creator. Catholicism calls this special relationship of created to Creator “original holiness and justice.” There was nothing “bad” in Adam’s original nature.

We do need to praise God for not only the marvels of our universe but also for the creation of human nature. We should praise God for His choice of how our material anatomy came to be. And we should praise God for creating our spiritual soul independent of the limits of the material world. By “independent” I mean that we are created beyond the material/physical world, in that we are in the image of God. Being in the image of God, we have the possibility of sharing in His life through knowledge and love.

Knowing the reality of Adam before the Fall is important because then we can understand why our own human nature is no longer in perfect harmony and why we need Jesus Christ in our lives.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The theory of evolution deals with the material anatomy. And I am grateful for the medical benefits coming from this theory.

And I love the Gregorian chant.

Original Sin is a matter of the spiritual soul. The spiritual soul does not evolve by evolution of the material anatomy. It is directly created by God.

It may well be that original sin is best understood as a product of evolution. That doesn’t mean that there are not theological implications. If the theological implications of an evolutionary theory of original sin are essentially consistent with Church teaching and if science contradicts the literal reading of Adam and Eve then it is not surprising that Cardinal Pell (and others) would regard the Adam and Eve story as mythical. Expect more, not less, of that, in the future.

In any case, it sounds like you have given up defending your claim here.

 

[grannymh]

And I love the Gregorian chant.

It may well be that original sin is best understood as a product of evolution. That doesn’t mean that there are not theological implications. If the theological implications of an evolutionary theory of original sin are essentially consistent with Church teaching and if science contradicts the literal reading of Adam and Eve then it is not surprising that Cardinal Pell (and others) would regard the Adam and Eve story as mythical. Expect more, not less, of that, in the future.

In any case, it sounds like you have given up defending your claim here.

The first thing I learned in a logic course is this. All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass. In other words, when it becomes difficult to know the difference between what is material and what is spiritual, all kinds of crazy ideas pop up. Or, if Catholic teachings are not known, the best thing to do is to make them up.

 

[grannymh]

This is a very timely, interesting Catholic news topic – especially in reference to Adam and Eve.
Link to OP. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664084

Here is the link to the news story in post 1.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Here is a link to the transcript of the debate between Cardinal George Pell, Sydney, Australia and Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author.
abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

More to follow…