Adam & Logic

[simpleas]

Maybe the bottom-line is that increased distance from God=increased suffering/disharmony while nearer proximity to God=increased joy/peace/order. This world is sort of a half-way house where both the good of God’s created order, justice, peace, beauty along with the evil of separation from Him, with all that entails, can be experienced-or known.

I thought this was an interesting question in the write up :

why did God allow Satan to do it?”

Ok, so we know Adam is held accountable for his action to disobey God and in turn we contracted Adams state, but I think we some how miss out the devils part in it and then that begs a question as to why God would allow the devil to corrupt Adam’s way of loving and knowing God.
But then even before God created Humans, he had created other life I think in their own way to know him, but could the devil have corrupted the animal kingdom before he corrupted man?

 

[fhansen]

But then even before God created Humans, he had created other life I think in their own way to know him, but could the devil have corrupted the animal kingdom before he corrupted man?

Personally, I don’t think satan had to do much besides offer an outside opinion/temptation-Adam & Eve did the rest by means of their own desires. We’re not so different from satan in many ways after all, as created beings inherently inferior to their Creator. And I doubt he had anything to do with corrupting other parts of creation directly. Just my opinion.

 

[simpleas]

Personally, I don’t think satan had to do much besides offer an outside opinion/temptation-Adam & Eve did the rest by means of their own desires. We’re not so different from satan in many ways after all, as created beings inherently inferior to their Creator. And I doubt he had anything to do with corrupting other parts of creation directly. Just my opinion.

Well I’d rather think we are more like Adam and Eve than satan! lol.
I don’t like to give any credit to satan, but I think many people leave him out of the story of the fall, our church has the text that he exists, but many today lean towards man being free to make his choice of following the light or dark. That no devil is tempting us.

I’m not sure there are any recent write ups about the reality of the devil, I found only PJP 2 from the 80’s statement,

When, by an act of his own free will, he rejected the truth that he knew about God, Satan became the cosmic “liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). For this reason, he lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose on creation–on the other beings created in the image of God and in particular on people–his own tragic “lie about the good” that is God.

On other beings created in the image of God, what other beings? Humans were the only beings created in the image of God. Not sure what he is referring to here…?

I wonder was is easy for satan to tempt Adam and Eve, from Genesis it would sound like it was.

 

[grannymh]

Learning about Adam can be an adventure of love.

 

[fhansen]

Well I’d rather think we are more like Adam and Eve than satan! lol.:

I was including them in the “we”.

I don’t like to give any credit to satan, but I think many people leave him out of the story of the fall, our church has the text that he exists, but many today lean towards man being free to make his choice of following the light or dark. That no devil is tempting us.

I’m not sure there are any recent write ups about the reality of the devil, I found only PJP 2 from the 80’s statement,

When, by an act of his own free will, he rejected the truth that he knew about God, Satan became the cosmic “liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). For this reason, he lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose on creation–on the other beings created in the image of God and in particular on people–his own tragic “lie about the good” that is God.

On other beings created in the image of God, what other beings? Humans were the only beings created in the image of God. Not sure what he is referring to here…?

I wonder was is easy for satan to tempt Adam and Eve, from Genesis it would sound like it was.

:

I see what you’re saying. I guess I just get tired of “the devil made me do it” crowd, more prevalent in certain Protestant groups it seems.

 

[simpleas]

I was including them in the “we”.

I see what you’re saying. I guess I just get tired of “the devil made me do it” crowd, more prevalent in certain Protestant groups it seems.

I don’t know anybody who thinks “the devil made me do it” (i’m not very worldly am i?) But I’ve heard that people did and still do think that way.

What I think I’m trying to understand is what the church actually says about the existence of satan.
I know we have never been taught that satan made A&E sin but tempted them, as with us, satan does not make us sin, but tempts us to sin. Hence the prayer of The Our Father.
I hear little if any reference to the existence of satan at church, which is fine, and I have no knowledge of Mass ever mentioning him, only asking God to keep us free from sin and protect us from evil.
So would it be right to think that sin and evil are satan?
We don’t need necessarily to believe in an actual being as satan?
I’ve always thought of satan as being the fallen angel living in hell, maybe a childish thought, but I’m really unsure how as a catholic in the 21st century I can explain who the tempter was and still is.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know anybody who thinks “the devil made me do it” (i’m not very worldly am i?) But I’ve heard that people did and still do think that way.

What I think I’m trying to understand is what the church actually says about the existence of satan.
I know we have never been taught that satan made A&E sin but tempted them, as with us, satan does not make us sin, but tempts us to sin. Hence the prayer of The Our Father.
I hear little if any reference to the existence of satan at church, which is fine, and I have no knowledge of Mass ever mentioning him, only asking God to keep us free from sin and protect us from evil.
So would it be right to think that sin and evil are satan?
We don’t need necessarily to believe in an actual being as satan?
I’ve always thought of satan as being the fallen angel living in hell, maybe a childish thought, but I’m really unsure how as a catholic in the 21st century I can explain who the tempter was and still is.

Angels and Satan As Taught in the 21st Century

The Existence of Angels - a Truth of Faith
CCC, 328-330

Angels As Free Creatures
CCC, 311

The Fall of the Angels
CCC, 391 - 395

A Hard Battle …
CCC, 407-409

But Deliver Us from Evil
CCC, 2850-2854

CCC, Index, Angel(s), page 756
CCC, Index, Demon, page 781

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know anybody who thinks “the devil made me do it” (i’m not very worldly am i?) But I’ve heard that people did and still do think that way.

What I think I’m trying to understand is what the church actually says about the existence of satan.
I know we have never been taught that satan made A&E sin but tempted them, as with us, satan does not make us sin, but tempts us to sin. Hence the prayer of The Our Father.
I hear little if any reference to the existence of satan at church, which is fine, and I have no knowledge of Mass ever mentioning him, only asking God to keep us free from sin and protect us from evil.
So would it be right to think that sin and evil are satan?
We don’t need necessarily to believe in an actual being as satan?
I’ve always thought of satan as being the fallen angel living in hell, maybe a childish thought, but I’m really unsure how as a catholic in the 21st century I can explain who the tempter was and still is.

The Church teaches that satan and his minions are actual, personal beings.

 

[grannymh]

From the Catholic Review
catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the account of the fall in Genesis … 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.”

In that language, Father Guinan detects a straddling of the issue. “It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language,” he pointed out, “but it also wants to hold to historicity. Unfortunately, you can’t really have both. The catechism is clearly not the place to argue theological discussions, so whoever wrote it decided, as it were, to have it both ways.”
Father Michael D. Guinan, OFM is one of many Catholics seeking change in the Catholic doctrines regarding a real Adam and Eve. The above is from a major news story in 2011 where he is explaining how Catholics should give up their belief in the real Adam and Eve. According to this breaking news, it is really easy for Catholics to free themselves from the Catholic chains of old fashioned Divine Revelation by our Creator.

There are as many ways to analyze the above as there are people reading the above.

Personally, I started with Father’s quote from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *The first two noticeable things are the omission of the citation and the empty space in “fall in Genesis … uses figurative language”… Frankly, I am not sure why the
CCC, paragraph number 390 and the chapter number 3 were dropped.

What is important is that the quote needs to be re-read and thought about independently. Writers on the slippery slope seem to take it for granted that Catholics do not care enough about the Catechism to actually read it energetically. For example, by going to CCC, 390,
we find the very interesting footnote 265. Notice the dates 1513 and 1966 which is evidence of the constant teaching of monogenism (first parents). 1513 refers to the Council of Trent. Those who are curious about the role of this Council should check out pages 721-722 in the “Index of Citations” which begins on page 689 following CCC, 2865.

Footnote 265 places Pius XII in the middle. This refers to the Encyclical,* Humani generis *To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrines.

For everyone’s information, please check out paragraph 35, especially the last sentence, and paragraphs 36 and 37. One of the tricks of those who want to topple Adam is to debate #37 and tire Catholic’s poor minds so that CCC, 35 becomes a blur.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Readers may wonder why I take such a long road regarding Catechism paragraph 390. Simple answer. I do not know everything about the Catholic Faith. Personal answer. When I hold the Catechism Second Edition in my hand, I can indulge my curiosity.

More will follow.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’ve always thought of satan as being the fallen angel living in hell, maybe a childish thought, but I’m really unsure how as a catholic in the 21st century I can explain who the tempter was and still is.

I thought I’d share some thoughts on your interesting comment:

“Childish” is a negative sort of adjective. It suggests regression, failure to grow, perhaps an inability to deal with what is real.
“Child-like” is very different. It is related to purity, a trusting, natural, unaffected openness. (I am very cynical and would like to be more child-like.)

You suggest that thinking “of Satan as being the fallen angel living in hell” is perhaps childish, I suppose like believing in (the anagram) Santa.
They would represent some sort of spirit within man: the latter, I suppose, the spirit of giving, in the secular version of Christmas, the former evil and sin.
Consider that sinfulness is part of our rational nature, and on the ladder from matter to God, just as emotions like fear connect us to beings (animals) below us, this evil, we share with those beings above us. People can behave like animals and like demons. Just as there are animals, there are demons.

There remains the problem of how you can “explain who the tempter was and still is”.
I am not sure to whom you have to explain, but the problem is trying to communicate with people who have a twenty-first century point of view.
The zeitgeist contains certainties, including:

• There is an overwhelmingly held sentiment that things are progressing and that what was held to be truth in the past has been superseded by the new. (All the new toys and weapons, seem to make it difficult for people to deny this)
• There is still a Descartian world-view in which, rather than relationships, there exists an object-subject duality, where the objective, out there reality is distinct from inner, relative opinion.
• The study of what is objective has been reduced to understanding its material building blocks and how they act and interact; and that is reduced to empiricism.
• So, anything not measurable and not having a property that can be physically translated into something perceivable, belongs to the realm of ideas and feelings, which even though they would include such important matters as purpose and what essentially something is, are seen as relative and not pertaining to the realm of what is solidly real.
• The idea that what cannot be studied scientifically is subjective and thus belonging to the individual, leads us away from the discovery of what is truly beautiful and good and towards what we see today: self-expression in art and relativism in morality.

I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be a problem.

But as in the second reading today from 1 Corinthians 3: 18-21 “Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours,” True two thousand years ago and true today.

 

[Aloysium]

Sorry, the quote is incomplete and should have read:

1 Corinthians 3: 18-21 “Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours . . . and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.”

 

[simpleas]

From the Catholic Review
catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the account of the fall in Genesis … 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.”

In that language, Father Guinan detects a straddling of the issue. “It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language,” he pointed out, “but it also wants to hold to historicity. Unfortunately, you can’t really have both. The catechism is clearly not the place to argue theological discussions, so whoever wrote it decided, as it were, to have it both ways.”
Father Michael D. Guinan, OFM is one of many Catholics seeking change in the Catholic doctrines regarding a real Adam and Eve. The above is from a major news story in 2011 where he is explaining how Catholics should give up their belief in the real Adam and Eve. According to this breaking news, it is really easy for Catholics to free themselves from the Catholic chains of old fashioned Divine Revelation by our Creator.

There are as many ways to analyze the above as there are people reading the above.

Personally, I started with Father’s quote from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *The first two noticeable things are the omission of the citation and the empty space in “fall in Genesis … uses figurative language”… Frankly, I am not sure why the
CCC, paragraph number 390 and the chapter number 3 were dropped.

What is important is that the quote needs to be re-read and thought about independently. Writers on the slippery slope seem to take it for granted that Catholics do not care enough about the Catechism to actually read it energetically. For example, by going to CCC, 390,
we find the very interesting footnote 265. Notice the dates 1513 and 1966 which is evidence of the constant teaching of monogenism (first parents). 1513 refers to the Council of Trent. Those who are curious about the role of this Council should check out pages 721-722 in the “Index of Citations” which begins on page 689 following CCC, 2865.

Footnote 265 places Pius XII in the middle. This refers to the Encyclical,* Humani generis *To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrines.

For everyone’s information, please check out paragraph 35, especially the last sentence, and paragraphs 36 and 37. One of the tricks of those who want to topple Adam is to debate #37 and tire Catholic’s poor minds so that CCC, 35 becomes a blur.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Readers may wonder why I take such a long road regarding Catechism paragraph 390. Simple answer. I do not know everything about the Catholic Faith. Personal answer. When I hold the Catechism Second Edition in my hand, I can indulge my curiosity.

More will follow.

Thanks for that.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

When I read the above, I tend to think about all other faiths in our world who have produced many very good people outside the catholic church.
By their own faith in God, they too can be people of holiness, but never having received any graces which we hold true.
If I’m right in saying the ccc was written alittle more than 60 years ago, we know more now about cultures and faiths than we did back then.
People regarding A&E as a mere example of bad choices in life can still maintain the divinty of Christ or so I’m lead to believe.

Please don’t shoot me, I’m just thinking aloud…

 

[simpleas]

From the Catholic Review
catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the account of the fall in Genesis … 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.”

In that language, Father Guinan detects a straddling of the issue. “It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language,” he pointed out, “but it also wants to hold to historicity. Unfortunately, you can’t really have both. The catechism is clearly not the place to argue theological discussions, so whoever wrote it decided, as it were, to have it both ways.”
Father Michael D. Guinan, OFM is one of many Catholics seeking change in the Catholic doctrines regarding a real Adam and Eve. The above is from a major news story in 2011 where he is explaining how Catholics should give up their belief in the real Adam and Eve. According to this breaking news, it is really easy for Catholics to free themselves from the Catholic chains of old fashioned Divine Revelation by our Creator.

There are as many ways to analyze the above as there are people reading the above.

Personally, I started with Father’s quote from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *The first two noticeable things are the omission of the citation and the empty space in “fall in Genesis … uses figurative language”… Frankly, I am not sure why the
CCC, paragraph number 390 and the chapter number 3 were dropped.

What is important is that the quote needs to be re-read and thought about independently. Writers on the slippery slope seem to take it for granted that Catholics do not care enough about the Catechism to actually read it energetically. For example, by going to CCC, 390,
we find the very interesting footnote 265. Notice the dates 1513 and 1966 which is evidence of the constant teaching of monogenism (first parents). 1513 refers to the Council of Trent. Those who are curious about the role of this Council should check out pages 721-722 in the “Index of Citations” which begins on page 689 following CCC, 2865.

Footnote 265 places Pius XII in the middle. This refers to the Encyclical,* Humani generis *To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrines.

For everyone’s information, please check out paragraph 35, especially the last sentence, and paragraphs 36 and 37. One of the tricks of those who want to topple Adam is to debate #37 and tire Catholic’s poor minds so that CCC, 35 becomes a blur.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Readers may wonder why I take such a long road regarding Catechism paragraph 390. Simple answer. I do not know everything about the Catholic Faith. Personal answer. When I hold the Catechism Second Edition in my hand, I can indulge my curiosity.

More will follow.

1. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Thoughts?

To me, I can think that our first parents evolved from a species. At some point we resembled a being and then God gave us a soul, creating us in his image, like no other being he had already created. So we then have the first parents A&E and then O.S.

I’d like to think of God creating humans completely separate from any other being, but we know that didn’t really happen? That is, until God gave us his spirit.

I’ve been reading posts from the start of this thread, and I know there is a ban on evolution being discussed, so I’m cauious to say to much.

 

[simpleas]

I thought I’d share some thoughts on your interesting comment:

“Childish” is a negative sort of adjective. It suggests regression, failure to grow, perhaps an inability to deal with what is real.
“Child-like” is very different. It is related to purity, a trusting, natural, unaffected openness. (I am very cynical and would like to be more child-like.)

You suggest that thinking “of Satan as being the fallen angel living in hell” is perhaps childish, I suppose like believing in (the anagram) Santa.
They would represent some sort of spirit within man: the latter, I suppose, the spirit of giving, in the secular version of Christmas, the former evil and sin.
Consider that sinfulness is part of our rational nature, and on the ladder from matter to God, just as emotions like fear connect us to beings (animals) below us, this evil, we share with those beings above us. People can behave like animals and like demons. Just as there are animals, there are demons.

There remains the problem of how you can “explain who the tempter was and still is”.
I am not sure to whom you have to explain, but the problem is trying to communicate with people who have a twenty-first century point of view.
The zeitgeist contains certainties, including:

• There is an overwhelmingly held sentiment that things are progressing and that what was held to be truth in the past has been superseded by the new. (All the new toys and weapons, seem to make it difficult for people to deny this)
• There is still a Descartian world-view in which, rather than relationships, there exists an object-subject duality, where the objective, out there reality is distinct from inner, relative opinion.
• The study of what is objective has been reduced to understanding its material building blocks and how they act and interact; and that is reduced to empiricism.
• So, anything not measurable and not having a property that can be physically translated into something perceivable, belongs to the realm of ideas and feelings, which even though they would include such important matters as purpose and what essentially something is, are seen as relative and not pertaining to the realm of what is solidly real.
• The idea that what cannot be studied scientifically is subjective and thus belonging to the individual, leads us away from the discovery of what is truly beautiful and good and towards what we see today: self-expression in art and relativism in morality.

I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be a problem.

But as in the second reading today from 1 Corinthians 3: 18-21 “Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours,” True two thousand years ago and true today.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Well I would have thought that hell was fire and damnation, but on reflection and where I am in my own spiritual growth, I now think of hell as the eternal separation from God, that is, not seeing God as we would hope to see after death.
But, if God is in heaven, then satan must be in hell, so there must be a place where satan dwells.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But, if God is in heaven, then satan must be in hell, so there must be a place where satan dwells.

That information is above my pay grade. Hell pops up on Google and Apple Maps, but it’s not where Satan dwells any more than anywhere else, as far as I am able to discern.

 

[grannymh]

All, really all persons, young and old, are given the possibility of sharing in God’s life in joy eternal. CCC, 1260 explains
**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
If there is still doubt, check out this last common sense statement from CCC, 1257
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.
CCC, 848 should be our proper reaction.
God is the One Who understands each person’s “faith.” That is not our job. We are the messengers.
**848 **“Although in ways known to Himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
Did anyone recognize that the “all persons, young and old” is exactly why Adam and Eve are the sole real parents of all humankind? You may collect your prize at the end of the thread.

:yeah_me:

 

[simpleas]

That information is above my pay grade. Hell pops up on Google and Apple Maps, but it’s not where Satan dwells any more than anywhere else, as far as I am able to discern.

Yeah, people say they are living hell on earth. Jesus decended into hell, so I assume there is such a place, where satan is?..Its something I’ll come to in my own time I suppose.
Thanks anyway

 

[simpleas]

All, really all persons, young and old, are given the possibility of sharing in God’s life in joy eternal. CCC, 1260 explains
**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
If there is still doubt, check out this last common sense statement from CCC, 1257
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.
CCC, 848 should be our proper reaction.
God is the One Who understands each person’s “faith.” That is not our job. We are the messengers.
**848 **“Although in ways known to Himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
Did anyone recognize that the “all persons, young and old” is exactly why Adam and Eve are the sole real parents of all humankind? You may collect your prize at the end of the thread.

:yeah_me:

Can I ask you a question.

Could you in your own words, without quoting line for line the CCC, how you would answer the question put to you by a non believer :

Can you explain how you believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents?
I don’t mean about O.S, or revelation, just about the first man and woman God created.

I think you could do this pretty easily, I’d like to hear it from you rather than quotes from the CCC.

Thanks

 

[grannymh]

Can I ask you a question.

Can you explain how you believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents?

Yes. Here is some background.

As a very young student, I was told the simple story of Adam and Eve according to the actual Catholic doctrines on the subject. The terminology was logical cause and effect meaning that there was a cause (two sole human parents) responsible for certain “effects” seen in human history. As a high school student, I learned early Church history including the heresies. Most heresy info is no longer in my memory bank. It is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church regarding Divine Revelation which stayed with me in an outline form.

While I was aware of some of the attacks, mostly symbolism, on Adam’s true existence, it was the 21st century’s multi-positions which were devastating for me personally.

To answer your question “Can you explain how you believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents?”

My answer is that when my faith was shaken, I had to re-learn that first simple story of Adam and Eve in terms of Catholic theology, modern science disciplines, ancient epics, St. Paul’s teachings, figurative interpretations, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and the first three chapters of Genesis.

I now believe in Adam and Eve as our first loving parents because all the pieces of knowledge fit together like pieces in a beautiful puzzle.

 

[simpleas]

Yes. Here is some background.

As a very young student, I was told the simple story of Adam and Eve according to the actual Catholic doctrines on the subject. The terminology was logical cause and effect meaning that there was a cause (two sole human parents) responsible for certain “effects” seen in human history. As a high school student, I learned early Church history including the heresies. Most heresy info is no longer in my memory bank. It is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church regarding Divine Revelation which stayed with me in an outline form.

While I was aware of some of the attacks, mostly symbolism, on Adam’s true existence, it was the 21st century’s multi-positions which were devastating for me personally.

To answer your question “Can you explain how you believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents?”

My answer is that when my faith was shaken, I had to re-learn that first simple story of Adam and Eve in terms of Catholic theology, modern science disciplines, ancient epics, St. Paul’s teachings, figurative interpretations, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and the first three chapters of Genesis.

I now believe in Adam and Eve as our first loving parents because all the pieces of knowledge fit together like pieces in a beautiful puzzle.

Thanks for that, you did nearly answer my question.

What did you find that answered the question that God made only one male/female rather than a group we evolved from?