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

[grannymh]

The OP asks a specific question about using the word mythology in reference to Adam and Eve. “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?”

In my humble opinion, the issue of Adam and Eve’s reality has expanded to the point where one really has a hard time placing two real people in the Garden of Eden. (the first three chapters of Genesis)

The Australian article described the question about the Garden this way.

Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account. theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

The following is from the transcript under “Evolution and the Church”. . abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

“JO BLADES: As a young Catholic scientist, I’d like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church’s position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real?”

“GEORGE PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution,”
At that point, the Cardinal shifted to Darwin.

I wonder what has been clarified.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The OP asks a specific question about using the word mythology in reference to Adam and Eve. “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?”

In my humble opinion, the issue of Adam and Eve’s reality has expanded to the point where one really has a hard time placing two real people in the Garden of Eden. (the first three chapters of Genesis)

The Australian article described the question about the Garden this way.

Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account. theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

The following is from the transcript under “Evolution and the Church”. . abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

“JO BLADES: As a young Catholic scientist, I’d like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church’s position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real?”

“GEORGE PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution,”
At that point, the Cardinal shifted to Darwin.

I wonder what has been clarified.

You cannot believe, to some extent, what you want about evolution.
Evolution is not a question of belief. Is is a question of science and science does not lead with beliefs. Either is or is not.
Now, that God created the Human Soul and incarnated it in an animal, that is a question of belief. The Bible says incarnated in clay or the ribs of Adam, but that in a way of sayig things.

 

[grannymh]

You cannot believe, to some extent, what you want about evolution.
Evolution is not a question of belief. Is is a question of science and science does not lead with beliefs. Either is or is not.
Now, that God created the Human Soul and incarnated it in an animal, that is a question of belief. The Bible says incarnated in clay or the ribs of Adam, but that in a way of sayig things.

Science is the presentation of the material/physical universe.

Maybe presentation is not quite the right word and someone has a better word. The way I want to use the word presentation is this. The stars at night say to the person who is awake – Here we, the stars, are in the sky above. We, the stars, are present to you the human stargazer. If one calls the stars science, the stars are either present (real) or not.

Taking the two ideas of material/physical science and “belief” a step further. The stars, which are material/physical science, exist in the sunlight. Am I right about that? The material/physical science of stars exists even when I put my head under the pillow and reason that because I cannot see the sky, the material/physical science of stars does not exist.

What I would like readers to understand is that scientific stars exist independently of sunshine and independently of the belief or non-belief of human beings.

I realize that because of the skepticism of some popular writers, readers may have a bit of trouble with material/physical real science. So it is probably best that I pause before looking at “belief”.

 

[buffalo]

The OP asks a specific question about using the word mythology in reference to Adam and Eve. “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?”

In my humble opinion, the issue of Adam and Eve’s reality has expanded to the point where one really has a hard time placing two real people in the Garden of Eden. (the first three chapters of Genesis)

The Australian article described the question about the Garden this way.

Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account. theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

The following is from the transcript under “Evolution and the Church”. . abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

“JO BLADES: As a young Catholic scientist, I’d like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church’s position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real?”

“GEORGE PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution,”
At that point, the Cardinal shifted to Darwin.

I wonder what has been clarified.

Indeed, this was a troubling exchange.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Science is the presentation of the material/physical universe.

Maybe presentation is not quite the right word and someone has a better word. The way I want to use the word presentation is this. The stars at night say to the person who is awake – Here we, the stars, are in the sky above. We, the stars, are present to you the human stargazer. If one calls the stars science, the stars are either present (real) or not.

Taking the two ideas of material/physical science and “belief” a step further. The stars, which are material/physical science, exist in the sunlight. Am I right about that? The material/physical science of stars exists even when I put my head under the pillow and reason that because I cannot see the sky, the material/physical science of stars does not exist.

What I would like readers to understand is that scientific stars exist independently of sunshine and independently of the belief or non-belief of human beings.

I realize that because of the skepticism of some popular writers, readers may have a bit of trouble with material/physical real science. So it is probably best that I pause before looking at “belief”.

Sincerely, I do not know where you want to prove. If you care to explain it better…
Moreover, you chose the worst example of all.
The stars that we see in the sky do not exist as such. Their light, for most of them, started from the star millions of years ago. Actually, many of them do not exist anymore. What we see in the sky is how the Universe was millions of years ago. We just guess how it is now, through the laws of science.
You just stopped short of entering into “belief” so it is hard for the reader to see the connection.
The knowledge of belief may be more real than science.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Indeed, this was a troubling exchange.

In interviews, many times you do not say what you want to say.
Interviews are to be listened to not to be read.
Written texts are to be read, oral texts are to be listened to.

 

[grannymh]

Sincerely, I do not know where you want to prove. If you care to explain it better…

Thank you for responding with the example I gave. What I am demonstrating with the stars is that science starts out with the material/physical universe. I am agreeing with your comment regarding science that something material/physical either is or is not from your post 290.

Moreover, you chose the worst example of all.
The stars that we see in the sky do not exist as such. Their light, for most of them, started from the star millions of years ago.

We know this because from a scientific position both the light exists and the source of light existed at some point in time.

Actually, many of them do not exist anymore. What we see in the sky is how the Universe was millions of years ago. We just guess how it is now, through the laws of science.

The basic principle of all such laws of science is to describe or explain what is happening or what is the process that explains the outcome. For example, stars ceasing to exist. Guessing how something happens refers to why something happens. I do not see anything wrong with that because guesses are part of determining the process. Hypotheses can start out as a guess.

You just stopped short of entering into “belief” so it is hard for the reader to see the connection.
The knowledge of belief may be more real than science.

My apology for stopping short. It was because I realized I needed to explore science more since Cardinal Pell referred to science. The article says: “Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.”

I definitely agree with your post 294. Yet, written or spoken, we need to do our best to understand the words and how they are used. Plus, the Cardinal’s words have been said quite often on CAF, so I sincerely feel it is important to discuss them. I do think it is possible to discuss those “words” separate from the individual Cardinal.

That being said, I would like to go back to your post 290 where you commented: “Evolution is not a question of belief. It is a question of science and science does not lead with beliefs.”

Ignoring the concept of belief, I would like to point out that the evolution theory is not material/physical science per se; it is a description or explanation of what happened to different material living organisms in their distant past. Evolution is the name of the process of change. Evolution is similar to what you said in post 293: “What we see in the sky is how the Universe was millions of years ago. We just guess how it is now, through the laws of science.” I see in that comment that we are trying to determine the process which caused what we see now. Evolution can be seen as similar to natural laws which describe the activities of the stars, i.e., the light from its source.

We try to find the natural laws or the best theory which explains the process that took place.

As you can tell, I do not take natural laws or theories for granted. Since the beginning of human history, we have continually sought explanations for our environment. Some of those explanations, like a flat earth, are silly to us. But, we need to realize that people were sincerely seeking explanations. Columbus was an individual who was not afraid to test the flat earth theory by following a more reasonable theory.

The point is that evolution is an explanation of what is observed on our earth. Sincere scientists have worked hard trying to put together a reasonable explanation for plants and for material anatomies. Personally, I believe that it is a good explanation of what has happened or is happening to some living material anatomies. Evolution is an explanation of a process which can occur in living organisms which are totally material/physical.

The question which needs to be asked is – can the evolution process be applied to a living being who is also spiritual? What is a reasonable theory which takes in the fact that human nature per se is an unification of both the material and spiritual?

Is it reasonable to say that science and religion are two different activities when it comes to describing the process (evolution or another process theory) for human origin?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thank you for responding with the example I gave. What I am demonstrating with the stars is that science starts out with the material/physical universe. I am agreeing with your comment regarding science that something material/physical either is or is not from your post 290.

We know this because from a scientific position both the light exists and the source of light existed at some point in time.

The basic principle of all such laws of science is to describe or explain what is happening or what is the process that explains the outcome. For example, stars ceasing to exist. Guessing how something happens refers to why something happens. I do not see anything wrong with that because guesses are part of determining the process. Hypotheses can start out as a guess.

My apology for stopping short. It was because I realized I needed to explore science more since Cardinal Pell referred to science. The article says: “Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.”

I definitely agree with your post 294. Yet, written or spoken, we need to do our best to understand the words and how they are used. Plus, the Cardinal’s words have been said quite often on CAF, so I sincerely feel it is important to discuss them. I do think it is possible to discuss those “words” separate from the individual Cardinal.

That being said, I would like to go back to your post 290 where you commented: “Evolution is not a question of belief. It is a question of science and science does not lead with beliefs.”

Ignoring the concept of belief, I would like to point out that the evolution theory is not material/physical science per se; it is a description or explanation of what happened to different material living organisms in their distant past. Evolution is the name of the process of change. Evolution is similar to what you said in post 293: “What we see in the sky is how the Universe was millions of years ago. We just guess how it is now, through the laws of science.” I see in that comment that we are trying to determine the process which caused what we see now. Evolution can be seen as similar to natural laws which describe the activities of the stars, i.e., the light from its source.

We try to find the natural laws or the best theory which explains the process that took place.

As you can tell, I do not take natural laws or theories for granted. Since the beginning of human history, we have continually sought explanations for our environment. Some of those explanations, like a flat earth, are silly to us. But, we need to realize that people were sincerely seeking explanations. Columbus was an individual who was not afraid to test the flat earth theory by following a more reasonable theory.

The point is that evolution is an explanation of what is observed on our earth. Sincere scientists have worked hard trying to put together a reasonable explanation for plants and for material anatomies. Personally, I believe that it is a good explanation of what has happened or is happening to some living material anatomies. Evolution is an explanation of a process which can occur in living organisms which are totally material/physical.

The question which needs to be asked is – can the evolution process be applied to a living being who is also spiritual? What is a reasonable theory which takes in the fact that human nature per se is an unification of both the material and spiritual?

Is it reasonable to say that science and religion are two different activities when it comes to describing the process (evolution or another process theory) for human origin?

Listen, this is MY opinion:

he question which needs to be asked is – can the evolution process be applied to a living being who is also spiritual? What is a reasonable theory which takes in the fact that human nature per se is an unification of both the material and spiritual?

To the Body, yes, it came from Evolution.
To the Soul, never, it was created individually by God, at the time of our conception.
God incarnates the Soul into the human egg.

 

[grannymh]

Listen, this is MY opinion:

To the Body, yes, it came from Evolution.
To the Soul, never, it was created individually by God, at the time of our conception.
God incarnates the Soul into the human egg.

I understand. It is also the opinion of many other people.

The difficulty in our current century is that the term “evolution” has morphed beyond its original use as a descriptive explanation for observable diversity among species.

 

[grannymh]

The difficulty in our current century is that the term “evolution” has morphed beyond its original use as a descriptive explanation for observable diversity among species.

We ordinary folk need to catch up with the term “science” which Cardinal Pell broadly referred to. We need to catch up with the “evolution process” which is currently being applied to our own human nature. I use process as in the dictionary meaning-- “A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result” Source: * American Heritage College Dictionary*

In order to appreciate and promote the Catholic doctrine the OP referred to, we need to do our homework.

Any suggestions as to where we should start???

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Any suggestions as to where we should start???

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412HMYTPGML.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg

 

[Nec5]

You cannot believe, to some extent, what you want about evolution.
Evolution is not a question of belief. Is is a question of science and science does not lead with beliefs.

But scientists do because they are human. And evolution is a question of belief. Do you believe the evidence presented/uncovered fits the theoretical model of evolution to the point that it is pretty much established fact?

Many do. Many do not.

If Adam and Eve were metaphors, then I guess Christ and Paul were playing the metaphor game as well in the New Testament when they reference the happenings in the Old Testament (Noah’s Flood, Jonah, “the first Adam”). Of course, the text does not read that way at all. That’s just rationalization by people who believe what the secular world gives them and try to fit it into what the Lord revealed to us.

It would be far more consistent to simply reject the Bible as a legit tome of Truth as many non-Chrstians do. At most, they call it a book of sound teaching. At least, they’re honest in their doubt or rejection. But to twist the text to fit what you want it to is neither honest nor accurate. It is the musings of a weak will that cannot make a decision.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I understand. It is also the opinion of many other people.

The difficulty in our current century is that the term “evolution” has morphed beyond its original use as a descriptive explanation for observable diversity among species.

Usually it is said that Man came through evolution. Stop.I cannot accept that.

I think that is up to us, Christians, to proclaim the creation by God of the Soul. I do not think that we should go head-on against evolution. I think that we should accept the evolution of the Body and clash and proclaim the creation of the Individual Human Soul. That is a duty of every christian to do that.

If we deny the evolution of the Body we lose credibility as evolution is practically accepted unanimously and the scientific data are huge.

But we should preach the Church Teaching: that the Human Soul is created individually by God on the act of conception.

And the reasons are huge too: I have never seen a monkey get through University nor high school. The abstract thought is not within material scientific explanation. How do you explain the idea “JUSTICE” through material atoms and protons and neutrons? Where is there that idea?

Even the hypothesis that quantity generates quality is yet to be proven. If complexity generated quality, the elephant or the whale should be super-intelligent and we do not see that.

The hazard does not seem to go far away. If you throw all the letters of “Hamlet” and gyrate through billions of years, you will never get the Hamlet together. Hazard does not lead to intelligence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all tend to entropy not the reverse.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

But scientists do because they are human. And evolution is a question of belief. Do you believe the evidence presented/uncovered fits the theoretical model of evolution to the point that it is pretty much established fact?

Many do. Many do not.

If Adam and Eve were metaphors, then I guess Christ and Paul were playing the metaphor game as well in the New Testament when they reference the happenings in the Old Testament (Noah’s Flood, Jonah, “the first Adam”). Of course, the text does not read that way at all. That’s just rationalization by people who believe what the secular world gives them and try to fit it into what the Lord revealed to us.

It would be far more consistent to simply reject the Bible as a legit tome of Truth as many non-Chrstians do. At most, they call it a book of sound teaching. At least, they’re honest in their doubt or rejection. But to twist the text to fit what you want it to is neither honest nor accurate. It is the musings of a weak will that cannot make a decision.

Come on. You should study the Bible. It seems that you are putting the page one and the last page in the same bag.
The first page was written maybe 1200 before Christ and the last page maybe 70 after Christ. The difference is more than from the Middle Ages to 2012.
There are 70 and so books written by hundreds of writers.
The variety is huge, from books of prayers, poetry, history in a variety of styles.
If you are aware of the literature genres, you will know that theoretics divide into 3: dramatic, narrative, lyric. Inside the Narrative, there is the epic style. What is the epic style? It is the one that put emphasis in the “hero”, who is a quasi-god, a man of utterly great virtues and capable and god-like feats. See Batman, the Hero Cow-Boys, the Super-Policemen, and so on, I do not remember more…
So, do not put all in the same bag. You should study more and then, you will realize that all makes sense…
Google and Wikipedia have lots of info…not bad…

 

[grannymh]

The early interpretations of evolution evidence have gone far beyond the descriptive explanation of how material anatomies became what they are today. There was a time, way back, when the human anatomy could be viewed as the result of a series of actions, changes, or functions within cell structures. And there was no doubt that a person’s spiritual soul was directly created by God. Your whole post 301 attests to the fact that human nature is an unique peerless unification of the spiritual soul and material anatomy.

The abstract thought is not within material scientific explanation. How do you explain the idea “JUSTICE” through material atoms and protons and neutrons? Where is there that idea?

What I have put in bold is what has changed in today’s evolution model. Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

When one studies the first three chapters of Genesis, the necessity of a spiritual soul is front and center. Yet, some interpreters of the material evidence for legitimate changes, adaptations, and general mutations, are claiming improper universal exclusions which are not warranted by said evidence. As additional “evidence” some interpreters claim that Adam and Eve are not real people, but rather mythological symbols of the human anatomy’s long journey to consciousness of the surrounding population and a need for some cultural values.

Because the huge scientific data is based on retrospective calculations which are based on some chosen assumptions, the possibility of two sole founders of humanity does exist.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The early interpretations of evolution evidence have gone far beyond the descriptive explanation of how material anatomies became what they are today. There was a time, way back, when the human anatomy could be viewed as the result of a series of actions, changes, or functions within cell structures. And there was no doubt that a person’s spiritual soul was directly created by God. Your whole post 301 attests to the fact that human nature is an unique peerless unification of the spiritual soul and material anatomy.

What I have put in bold is what has changed in today’s evolution model. Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

When one studies the first three chapters of Genesis, the necessity of a spiritual soul is front and center. Yet, some interpreters of the material evidence for legitimate changes, adaptations, and general mutations, are claiming improper universal exclusions which are not warranted by said evidence. As additional “evidence” some interpreters claim that Adam and Eve are not real people, but rather mythological symbols of the human anatomy’s long journey to consciousness of the surrounding population and a need for some cultural values.

Because the huge scientific data is based on retrospective calculations which are based on some chosen assumptions, the possibility of two sole founders of humanity does exist.

Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

No, no and no.
That’s what I am fighting all my life.
There is no single proof that thought comes from matter. But depends on matter.
If my brain does not work properly I cannot think properly. But thought does not come from the brain.

An example:
If the program of TV is bad you do not call the electric engineer to make a better program, you call on new comedians.
If the TV set is malfunctioning, you do not call on the comedians to repair it, you call the electric engineer.

That is the difference between body and soul.
The comedians script comes from the soul, NEVER from atoms.
But you need good working brains on part of the comedians and the audience, otherwise the script won’t work.

 

[grannymh]

From granny’s post 303 – “Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.”

No, no and no.
That’s what I am fighting all my life.
There is no single proof that thought comes from matter. But depends on matter.
If my brain does not work properly I cannot think properly. But thought does not come from the brain.

:flowers: Please accept my apology for any confusion. We are addressing the same issue but from different positions from different points in time.

The ban on evolution discussion in certain, individual forums forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410885
went into effect before you became a member.
I respect the ban and intend to follow it in those forums which have it in place.

Nonetheless, I consider the information I learned before the ban as valuable regarding what is happening today in scientific and theological circles. I have read some of the actual research and most, not all, philosophical/theological so-called “solutions” needed to match Catholic doctrine to the material/physical realm. I have continued studying both the scientific and theological issues involved in the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature. I assure you that I am only a beginner.

The Australian article and the OP of this thread raise serious questions about the Catholic position regarding the complete reality of two first parents of humanity known biblically as Adam and Eve. The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today’s evolution speculations about human origin.

An example:
If the program of TV is bad you do not call the electric engineer to make a better program, you call on new comedians.
If the TV set is malfunctioning, you do not call on the comedians to repair it, you call the electric engineer.

That is the difference between body and soul.
The comedians script comes from the soul, NEVER from atoms.
But you need good working brains on part of the comedians and the audience, otherwise the script won’t work.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

From granny’s post 303 – “Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.”

:flowers: Please accept my apology for any confusion. We are addressing the same issue but from different positions from different points in time.

The ban on evolution discussion in certain, individual forums forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410885
went into effect before you became a member.
I respect the ban and intend to follow it in those forums which have it in place.

Nonetheless, I consider the information I learned before the ban as valuable regarding what is happening today in scientific and theological circles. I have read some of the actual research and most, not all, philosophical/theological so-called “solutions” needed to match Catholic doctrine to the material/physical realm. I have continued studying both the scientific and theological issues involved in the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature. I assure you that I am only a beginner.

The Australian article and the OP of this thread raise serious questions about the Catholic position regarding the complete reality of two first parents of humanity known biblically as Adam and Eve. The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today’s evolution speculations about human origin.

Thanks for the apologies but I was not offended in any way. It is a pleasure to debate with you…
I think there was (or there is) something of a ban but … sincerely, I cannot realize how things stand.
I was told by a Moderator that the ban depends on Moderator and on the Forum under their supervision, for I said that I did not want to discuss evolution because it was forbidden and he said that it was not in his Forum but on another.
Well, my rules are: to attack ideas and actions; never attack people. As i realize, these criteria are for me enough for a polite discussion, but if there are other rules, I will follow.

My fight: to say that: 1) God exists; 2) that the human soul or spirit is spiritual, invisible, very powerful, it is the “Me” and survives death and lives eternally.

Do you know what?

I was not there. But I was told that my parish priest, the other Sunday, asked the audience: “Raise your hands those who believe we are going to survive after death!”. In a full packed church, 3 hands raised up. And I tell you, good, devote people, who come to rosary and so on. The priest replied: “What are you coming here to do?”.

I knew it. The priest only then realized it. I know that people think that after death they will be thrown into a grave and it is the end of it all…— Christians, Catholics, and so on.

So, that is my fight and, for a good cause, I can be aggressive…

As for what you said, there is a slight correction when you say:

The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today’s evolution speculations about human origin.

We call it “midrash” from the hebrew. Myth is more greek, adapted to Zeus, Aphridite and so on.

Now, listen: God talks to us in different ways. Till Galileo, people thought that the Sun turned around the Earth. God taught us, through Science, that it was not so. So, through a very painful process, Christians had to re-interpret the Bible and it was good, for we we interpreting it wrong. Now, we thought that Adam and Eve were our first Fathers. God, through Science, says no. Through another painful process, we have to re-interpret the Bible for God is talking to us through Science and both MUST BE in conformity for THERE ARE NOT 2 GODS.

What is “midrash”? Midrash were tales, in the Jewish Tradition, that conveyed a message of God. The Prodigal son, though being a midrash or parabole, is as real as if he was real. I do not care whether he existed or not. The message is there. Sorry, I never searched for Jesus Parables but now I did and sorry for putting them here for I find amazing:Alert servants; Barren fig tree; Bread of life; Budding fig tree; Children in market; Christian light; Dinner guests; Divided kingdom; Feast invitations; Friend at midnight; Good Samaritan; Good shepherd; Great physician; Grooms attendants; Growing seed; Hidden treasure; Householder; Humbled guest; King’s war plans; Laborers in vineyard; Landowner; Leaven;Lost coin; Lost sheep; Marriage feast; Mustard seed; Net of fish; New cloth; New wine; Pearl of great price; Pharisee and tax collector; Prodigal son; Rich man & Lazarus;Rich fool; Salt without taste; Servant’s duty; Sheep and goats; Sign of Jonah;Tares in field (part 1); Tares in field (part 2); Ten Minas; Ten talents; Ten virgins; The Sower (part 1); The Sower (part 2); Two debtors; Two sons; Unclean spirit; Unjust judge;Unjust steward; Unmerciful servant; Unprepared builder; Vine and branches;Watching servants; Wise builder; Wise servant; Wise steward.

That makes 57 Parables that remained in Jesus Teaching. As I was ordering them, I was thinking: “Is it a big surprise that Adam and Eve are a parable?”; Is it so that God to men speaks in Parables?. The Disciples said that Jesus always talked in Parables to the People !!!

In this context, Adam and Eve makes sense. They are not “people who did not exist” but an enormous teaching of Creation of the Universe and of Man, on the Soul, on the beauty of it all, of Sin and decaying of Man, of Hope in the midst of the Dark times.

After all, being a Parable, Adam and Eve are really mu Parents. And my heroes…

 

[grannymh]

I was told by a Moderator that the ban depends on Moderator and on the Forum under their supervision, for I said that I did not want to discuss evolution because it was forbidden and he said that it was not in his Forum but on another.

In this forum, the science supporting the evolution theory can be discussed as long as it pertains to the topic article. Discussion must be charitable. Cardinal Pell opened the doors to this discussion with his reference to science and his reference to mythology which pointed to not only Adam and Eve but human nature itself as described by Catholic doctrines and the process of human origin as described by the evolution theory. In addition to Cardinal Pell’s references, the relationship of science to Catholic basic doctrines is being debated on a national scale in many areas of the world. Thus, even the purpose of the debate questions themselves need to be recognized and discussed.

As for what you said, there is a slight correction when you say: “The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today’s evolution speculations about human origin.”

We call it “midrash” from the hebrew. Myth is more greek, adapted to Zeus, Aphridite and so on.

What is “midrash”? Midrash were tales, in the Jewish Tradition, that conveyed a message of God.

There has been discussion on other threads about the proper meaning of mythology and about “midrash” as contributing to the make-up of the first three chapters of Genesis. Though I do not remember seeing the word “midrash”. However, from your description I am sure “midrash” was being discussed.

What I see happening is that the word “mythology” is now the popular meaning of non-real. Catholics seem to be using the word mythology as a description of a non-real Garden of Eden etc., etc. The following quotes from the article are a good example of the problems associated with “mythology.”

**Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.

“It’s certainly not a scientific truth. And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”**

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822 Refer back to post 1.

I agree that when we read about a heated debate, it is difficult to know what exactly was meant and if the speaker really meant the way the statement sounded. As I have said before, the article’s “words and their expression” are all over the conversation scene. It is time for Catholics to sort out the truth. That is not an easy task.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In this forum, the science supporting the evolution theory can be discussed as long as it pertains to the topic article. Discussion must be charitable. Cardinal Pell opened the doors to this discussion with his reference to science and his reference to mythology which pointed to not only Adam and Eve but human nature itself as described by Catholic doctrines and the process of human origin as described by the evolution theory. In addition to Cardinal Pell’s references, the relationship of science to Catholic basic doctrines is being debated on a national scale in many areas of the world. Thus, even the purpose of the debate questions themselves need to be recognized and discussed.

There has been discussion on other threads about the proper meaning of mythology and about “midrash” as contributing to the make-up of the first three chapters of Genesis. Though I do not remember seeing the word “midrash”. However, from your description I am sure “midrash” was being discussed.

What I see happening is that the word “mythology” is now the popular meaning of non-real. Catholics seem to be using the word mythology as a description of a non-real Garden of Eden etc., etc. The following quotes from the article are a good example of the problems associated with “mythology.”

**Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.

“It’s certainly not a scientific truth. And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”**

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822 Refer back to post 1.

I agree that when we read about a heated debate, it is difficult to know what exactly was meant and if the speaker really meant the way the statement sounded. As I have said before, the article’s “words and their expression” are all over the conversation scene. It is time for Catholics to sort out the truth. That is not an easy task.

I avoid on purpose the word “myth” because it is loaded with explosives. You start discussing what do you mean by “myth” and it is a never ending story. The word “midrash” is of jewish ascent and I learnt it in my classes of Theology. So, I never say that Adam and Eve are a myth. I prefer even the word “parable”.

As you said, the word “myth” does not mean what it should mean: a story with a morale, like are all greek myths, very, very beautiful but , as you said, something that does not exist.

So I start anew with midrash which moreover, was given to me by my Professor of Old Testament.

My view is simple: as long as you are not an atheist, as long as you say what the Bible says that God created the Universe and created Men, then you could say whatever from the body, that comes from clay, from the rib of Adam, from a monkey, that just parachuted from an ET engine (which should be created by God too)…just joking but my emphasis is: God first. The details? God knows.

Even if God incarnated a Soul into an animal which is my favorite theory, to know where, when how, it is a terribly hard task.

I think that our mission is to preach God. And the message of Adam and Eve, so, it is very, very beautiful, as long as you consider that that is not literal. You put aside the literal and get the essential: 1) How God Created the Universe by His Word; 2) How He found this World beautiful (tough message for todays world); 3) how it is possible all living creatures to live in harmony ( message for the ecological disasters of today); 4) How God rules the world and we must obey to him, even if he tells that you can eat that but not this (tough message for the 10 commandmentes); 5) how man is a sinner; 6) how man sees himself naked through sin: after all, nakedness is not wrong but depends on man’s evil eyes… and so on and on and on.

Adam and Eve are much bore beautiful when they are a midrash then when I think of them real…