Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Historicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Historicity said:
And that brings us back to my previous question of which parents?
Click to expand...
Humanity’s two first parents from Genesis. The two creatures who were given a special connection to and an understanding of God’s grace.
 
Historicity said:
I understand that a real- life counterpart is not needed for stories to reveal a moral truth, yet I see so much of the church doctrine based on the the idea of original sin (which you’re saying itself isn’t doctrine), but maybe I’m not informed enough on the actual teaching of original sin in the church.
Click to expand...
Practically everything in the Catholic church is based on Original Sin - particularly with regard to infant baptism and the Marian doctrines. This is one of the main reasons I am not Catholic. The “Magesterium” takes a teaching which has little to no Biblical backing, makes it a dogma, and then builds a house on that “sand,” which can only result in compounding absurdities.

Why is the Adam and Eve story special? There is nothing in the narrative that distinguishes between Adam and Eve and a literal 7 24-hour days creation. Why are Adam and Even necessarily literal, and yet the idea that the earth is billions of years old is readily accepted? Because, just as you’ve pointed out, without original sin the whole house of cards (or house on sand if you prefer) crumbles.
 
Historicity said:
Where do we begin to determine which parents these should be? Would our parents be considered the first homosapien sapiens, or the first homo sapiens, Australopithecus or a different early man, first reptiles, first amphibians, first multicellular life, first complex cells, or first single cells?
Click to expand...
They’d at least be the first beings in the line capable of making a moral choice.
 
ckempston said:
Practically everything in the Catholic church is based on Original Sin - particularly with regard to infant baptism and the Marian doctrines. This is one of the main reasons I am not Catholic. The “Magesterium” takes a teaching which has little to no Biblical backing, makes it a dogma, and then builds a house on that “sand,” which can only result in compounding absurdities.

Why is the Adam and Eve story special? There is nothing in the narrative that distinguishes between Adam and Eve and a literal 7 24-hour days creation. Why are Adam and Even necessarily literal, and yet the idea that the earth is billions of years old is readily accepted? Because, just as you’ve pointed out, without original sin the whole house of cards (or house on sand if you prefer) crumbles.
Click to expand...
🤷

Why did Christ come to Earth? What was He doing here?
 
ckempston said:
That’s like saying if the people in Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son weren’t “literal, historical figures” then the moral lesson taught therein would be null and void. A story doesn’t have to be literal for it to convey a spiritual truth.

As the RCC is wrong about original sin anyway, that’s really a moot point.
Click to expand...
On what authority do you base your claim about original sin?

Peace,
Ed
 
ckempston said:
Practically everything in the Catholic church is based on Original Sin - particularly with regard to infant baptism and the Marian doctrines. This is one of the main reasons I am not Catholic. The “Magesterium” takes a teaching which has little to no Biblical backing, makes it a dogma, and then builds a house on that “sand,” which can only result in compounding absurdities.

Why is the Adam and Eve story special? There is nothing in the narrative that distinguishes between Adam and Eve and a literal 7 24-hour days creation. Why are Adam and Even necessarily literal, and yet the idea that the earth is billions of years old is readily accepted? Because, just as you’ve pointed out, without original sin the whole house of cards (or house on sand if you prefer) crumbles.
Click to expand...
Bolded the great examples of the certain things I’ve been subtly referring to. This house of sand that you’re using to explain this, I think can also be explained by the simple fallacies of tradition within the church. People see some of these traditional teachings that are now doctrines and fail to recognize how fallible they are and due to the sad fact that people see these long standing traditions (under the guise of doctrine) and since the passage of time only perpetuates traditions in most cases, many are mislead in their beliefs.
 
ckempston said:
That was two separate comments…you seem to have combined them. I’ll break it down for you:

The Catholic claim: If Adam and Eve did not literally exist, original sin didn’t enter the world, therefore there’s no need for a savior, etc.

My first statement was regarding the reasoning above. Clearly, a literal, real-world counterpart does not need to exist for a story to convey a spiritual truth. It could very well be that God summed up evolution with the idea that, at some point, man went from being a simple animal, to being one with a conscience, morals, etc. That would be the point of moving from innocence and existing with only instinct, to being what we consider human and moral today.

The second statement was about the assumption that original sin was in fact a Biblical doctrine. It is not. So really the whole argument is not only invalid, as I demonstrated above, but at least one of its premises is false.
Click to expand...
"Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390)."

See Romans 5:12

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
fhansen said:
They’d at least be the first beings in the line capable of making a moral choice.
Click to expand...
There is no Biblical basis for this statement. I believe science is incapable of answering the question of the ontological leap to man…

Peace,
Ed
 
Historicity said:
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
If Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no beings with a human nature. However, please note that there is a ban on evolutionary discussions in this and other forums.
 
edwest2 said:
A few words about original sin:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp
Peace,
Ed
Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”:** the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God.** With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.
Code: 
  The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

* infused knowledge,

* absence of concupiscence, and

* freedom from death and sickness.

  The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

* indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and

*** the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).**
Click to expand...
1st bold, If this omnipotent God’s goals were originally intended for his will and his will only, why did he create a creature that he knew (omniscient) would ‘sin’ against him, contradicting his will?
And why would he let petty human beings change the course of his master, divine, cosmological plan?

2nd bold, I hope that’s not actually accepted as true that the practice of hope and charity are of theological or divine origin and a person that is not baptized, or not knowledgeable to the practice of baptism doesn’t use those virtues. Many non-baptized, non-religious people most certainly have hope and are quite charitable in their everyday life. You can’t honestly believe only people that have been baptized exercise these “virtues”.
 
ckempston said:
To save the people from their sins - Matt 1:21. Interestingly, it doesn’t say he came to save the people from Adam’s sin.
Click to expand...
Sin is a personal decision, a departure from the grace of God. Adam and Eve “felt” their closeness with God. When they sinned they “felt” naked and hid themselves. It changed them emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Their sin, that original disobedience (where they wished to be their own gods and blamed God for their mistakes) broke the connection with the Holy Spirit.

Baptism with water, as Jesus instructed, reconnects souls to the “fire” of the Holy Spirit. Baptism forgives the original sin of our original parents. We die to our old self and take on the life of Christ. That connection remains a daily personal choice. No different now for us, than it was for Adam and Eve.
 
Historicity said:
1st bold, If this omnipotent God’s goals were originally intended for his will and his will only, why did he create a creature that he knew (omniscient) would ‘sin’ against him, contradicting his will?
And why would he let petty human beings change the course of his master, divine, cosmological plan?

2nd bold, I hope that’s not actually accepted as true that the practice of hope and charity are of theological or divine origin and a person that is not baptized, or not knowledgeable to the practice of baptism doesn’t use those virtues. Many non-baptized, non-religious people most certainly have hope and are quite charitable in their everyday life. You can’t honestly believe only people that have been baptized exercise these “virtues”.
Click to expand...
These are theological virtues. They come from recognizing our spiritual selves as coming from God. Our orientation in practicing these virtues is toward God. Yes, others certainly have and act on hope and charity, but baptism brings us back into a relationship with God that we need to nurture throughout our lives. Hope and charity as taught by Jesus and the Church helps us to be more authentically human.

God gave Adam and Eve free will. They were individuals in and of themselves, not God’s robots. They could choose.

Peace,
Ed
 
I think you are off to the wrong start when you use words like “fundamentalist” uncritically. A fundamentalist is someone who subscribes to the Protestant movement that was started in America several decades ago. The movement was a reaction to liberal Protestantism at the time that was eschewing Christian beliefs like the Virgin Birth. The fundamentalists outlined what they called “fundamental beliefs” to which Christians in their movement must adhere. Now, if you look at this outline, Catholics affirm all of them, and more. So, in that sense, were fundamentalist.

As the Church teaches, there was some event of disobedience by our first parents, and this act of sin towards God is what we call Original Sin. It separated us from Him and resulted in our fallen natures.
 
Historicity said:
1st bold, If this omnipotent God’s goals were originally intended for his will and his will only, why did he create a creature that he knew (omniscient) would ‘sin’ against him, contradicting his will?
And why would he let petty human beings change the course of his master, divine, cosmological plan?

Angels aren’t robots and neither are we. Angels ran amuck, so do we. He and the angels rejoice when we return. He runs out to meet us before we can express our sorrow. He loves and forgives us and that makes us loving, forgiving and more repentant with the people around us.

2nd bold, I hope that’s not actually accepted as true that the practice of hope and charity are of theological or divine origin and a person that is not baptized, or not knowledgeable to the practice of baptism doesn’t use those virtues. Many non-baptized, non-religious people most certainly have hope and are quite charitable in their everyday life. You can’t honestly believe only people that have been baptized exercise these “virtues”.
Click to expand...
Do the Commandments. Jesus asked that St. Paul preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Our society, in particular has been directly and culturally influenced by Christ for 2,000 years.
 
grannymh said:
If Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no beings with a human nature. However, please note that there is a ban on evolutionary discussions in this and other forums.
Click to expand...
Wow, seriously? Is there a rational reason for this? Last I checked the RCC did not completely disagree with evolution, excepting that of man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top