Can I stay Catholic and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[Teek]

Not “sister or niece”. You’d have to be ok with “mother/son”.

I put the scripture that talks about Adam’s daughters. Genesis 5:4.

That is why I said he had a lot of progeny. Not for him to choose from! For Seth. So yes. Sister or niece.

I was not talking about parent child, so this is not the Divine Law problem.
"Gorgias:

“Right. Which is when the two hominids from many breaks down”.

“Two from many”? Do you mean “many from two”?

I meant “two hominids chosen out of many hominids to be ensouled.” This is where that breaks down.

Right. And Adam and Eve aren’t recorded a

Then where did the hominids come from that they were selected from to recieve a soul?

 

[spina1953]

My understanding is that Adam means human race not a particular person.

 

[Teek]

It’s immaterial at this point, I’d guess, but… the record of childbearing among ‘true human beings’ in the Bible begins after the fall.

Agreed. All that about the fall was to illustrate that the other hominids wouldn’t have been developing mutations before the fall. Which I thought was responding to something you said, but I looked, and it was probably to respond to this idea…

Having two original parents would not make sense. This would lead to inbreeding, which leads to genetic disorders.

There can’t be a theory that humans evolved to a pleasing point and then God gave them souls. And then they fell.

Interesting. How so?

Because evolution—genetic mutations—could not occur in a harmonious world. No sin or death or sickness or evolutionary pressure to survive—until those things entered the world through the fall.

You can’t fall without a soul. You need to be self aware and have free will to choose good and evil.

Therefore, the ensoulment has to be first. Then the fall. Then evolution.

That would be problematic. You’re positing that an end product (modern humans) existed prior to evolution, but were already exhibiting the genetic results of evolution?

Tell me how evolution could happen before the fall. Or how the fall could happen before the soul. I’m saying they could not have exhibited the genetic results of evolution.

 

[Gorgias]

I put the scripture that talks about Adam’s daughters. Genesis 5:4.

These “other sons and daughters” were born after Cain started a family. You’re still stuck explaining where his wife came from.

By the way, you still have to explain Seth’s wife. That would be brother/sister incest… which, again, is against divine law.

I meant “two hominids chosen out of many hominids to be ensouled.” This is where that breaks down.

Not sure where you’re seeing this “break down”.

Then where did the hominids come from that they were selected from to recieve a soul?

Non-question, isn’t it?

They were created prior to the ensoulment of Adam and Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

Because evolution—genetic mutations—could not occur in a harmonious world. No sin or death or sickness or evolutionary pressure to survive—until those things entered the world through the fall.

Hmm… unless mutation is part of God’s plan. “No death” is a misnomer, I suspect. The ‘death’ that sin brought is spiritual death (unless you want to suggest that there were no carnivores prior to the fall, or that they were herbivores that were transformed into carnivores at the fall!).

Therefore, the ensoulment has to be first. Then the fall. Then evolution.

I’d grant you the first two, but not the third.

Tell me how evolution could happen before the fall. Or how the fall could happen before the soul. I’m saying they could not have exhibited the genetic results of evolution.

Already addressed the first request, I think. Agreed with the second.

If modern humans share DNA with the rest of the animal kingdom – which is a result of evolution – and the animal kingdom was created prior to modern humans, then evolution must precede modern humans. Otherwise, your claim boils down to the fundamentalists’ assertion that God ‘planted’ DNA evidence in order to fool us.

 

[Teek]

Genesis 5:3-8

3 When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 6When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of E’nosh.
7 7Seth lived after the birth of E’nosh eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.

These “other sons and daughters” were born after Cain started a family. You’re still stuck explaining where his wife came from.

By the way, you still have to explain Seth’s wife. That would be brother/sister incest… which, again, is against divine law.

Adam had Seth when he was 130 years. Then he had other sons and daughters. Seth was 105 when he had E’nosh. It does not say that the other sons and daughters were after Seth satarted a family.

Abraham married his half sister.

 

[Teek]

Otherwise, your claim boils down to the fundamentalists’ assertion that God ‘planted’ DNA evidence in order to fool us.

That’s a strange conclusion. That’s like saying God made us all carbon based life forms to confuse us. Just because he used genes as blueprints to encode life and allow it to be fruitful and multiply doesn’t mean there HAS to be evolution to account for the differences.

I don’t think I believe the fundamentalistt version. I do think there is evidence for evolution in creation.

But I would maintain that God could have done whatever He wanted.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s a strange conclusion. That’s like saying God made us all carbon based life forms to confuse us.

Right – it is a strange conclusion. Tell me if I’m wrong, though, because that’s what I read in your words. You seemed to be setting up the following timeline:

• God creates animals
• God creates [true] humans in His image and likeness.
• Man sins and loses the preternatural gifts he had been given.
• Death enters the world.
• Evolution, in a fallen world, begins.

But wait… if humans show signs of being evolved from other animals, then how could that be true if evolution post-dates the appearance of humans? See where I’m getting what I’m asking you?

 

[Teek]

Absolutely! That’s why there aren’t easy answers!

If you approach it from your angle, you are right unless you consider my angle, then there needs to be an explanation.

But if you approach it from my angle, it sounds great until your angle is considered, then I have some explaining to do.

You can argue for the plausibility of either angle, that one is far stronger based on this or that co soderatiin, but it always gets back to yeeeeees, but then how do you explain THIS?

And to feel fully confident in your own theory you have to throw your faith into something fully enough to dismiss the other considerations as irrelevant.

For example, I think that evolution is driven by environmental pressure for survival. I believe that there was no struggle for survival during the time of Original Justice in the Garden. For me, either evolution must have anothe driving factor that is consistent with original justice, or I can’t explain evolution prior to the fall. But I have to ignore scientific arguments, provide an alternative scientific reason for what has been observed, or disprove the operating scientific theories. I can’t.

For you, the scientific evidence for evolution before modern man, do any theory that would deny this is insensible. You have to reject what has been observed to hold that position, which is not logical or rational to a scientific mind. But it still leaves a lot to be explained from a philosophical and theological position, and it can’t be done satisfactorily to PROVE anything.

Both can be strong enough to give an assent of faith.

That is why I love the Church. Because we are free to operate in the unknown as long as we hold fast to what is known.

There were two original parents to mankind, as we know mankind—created in the image and likeness of God—with a soul. We are all descended from that original couple. The soul is infused by God directly into every human person. There was a fall that introduced disorder that we inherited and need to be saved from.

Outside of that: you are not wrong, and neither am I. I think you make a TON of sense. I think I do, too, and I know there are areas where I don’t, not to others. But it feels right and consistent to me, and so I can stay where I am comfortable.

I don’t get to tell anyone else they are wrong, and I get to freely admit I probably have it wrong in a lot of ways, and I don’t ave to submit to the nuances that make me uncomfortable, as long as I operate in the framework of defined truth.

I love that! I love the multiplicity of ways that God could have done it! I believe He did it one way and that it is fact—real true historical fact. There is a truth to get to. And I believe that truth would be more complex, more important, more majestic than we could ever imagine.

So I love imagining about it, and I am not threatened by the disagreements.

Thanks so much for the exercise! I respect your intellect and your patience!

God bless everyone here for your love and interest in Truth!

 

[Gorgias]

Absolutely! That’s why there aren’t easy answers!

LOL! That’s what makes it fun to think about and discuss!

For example, I think that evolution is driven by environmental pressure for survival. I believe that there was no struggle for survival during the time of Original Justice in the Garden.

OK, so hold on for a second. What does “Original Justice” mean to you? From your description here, it seems that you’re defining that term as if it applies to all creation, or at least to the Garden of Eden.

Problem is… it doesn’t. “Original Justice” applies to the state of Adam and Eve only, prior to their sin. Specifically, it refers to their possession of sanctifying grace and preternatural gifts. When they sinned, they lost these, and as a result, so do we (their descendants).

However, what it doesn’t refer to is the life of anything else in creation – it only applies to Adam and Eve. Moreover, it doesn’t apply to anything with respect to daily physical survival (per se), but rather, with Adam and Eve’s spiritual connection with God. So… I don’t see how it touches in the least upon the notion of evolution.

Blessings,
G.

 

[spina1953]

For me personally I can Be Catholic and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The reason is due to the fact that when these stories were being told they were first told orally based on the question of how did we that is humans come about. There was not science when these stories were first being told and Scripture is not a science book.

The creation story,The primitive cosmology of the authors time is used to teach the creation of all things by God. The absolute power of the transcendent God is what is emphasized. The pagans epic’s depict creation as the result of a struggle between the gods and the forces of chaos, the biblical account stresses the effortless activity of the one God.

The creation story of Adam and Eve is really a story not just of the creation of the human race but the reason God created was to share His love to what He created and man was given him the ability to know God, that the rest of creation was not given. No one know how humans evolved or how man was created. For me its not important to know how God created man, only that God did. How God created is not necessary for salvation, beside who would be able to understand how God created it is beyond comprehension of man.

 

[tomarin]

What I would like to know is, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons (since they had no parents, therefore no mother who carried them in her womb attached to an umbilical cord)?

 

[Teek]

OK, so hold on for a second. What does “Original Justice” mean to you? From your description here, it seems that you’re defining that term as if it applies to all creation, or at least to the Garden of Eden.

Problem is… it doesn’t. “Original Justice” applies to the state of Adam and Eve only, prior to their sin. Specifically, it refers to their possession of sanctifying grace and preternatural gifts. When they sinned, they lost these, and as a result, so do we (their descendants).

However, what it doesn’t refer to is the life of anything else in creation – it only applies to Adam and Eve. Moreover, it doesn’t apply to anything with respect to daily physical survival (per se), but rather, with Adam and Eve’s spiritual connection with God. So… I don’t see how it touches in the least upon the notion of evolution.

Yay! We figured out where we aren’t agreeing in our fundamental “backstory” to the proposed scenario.

Yes. I am defining Original Justice to include all of creation in the Garden of Eden. What you are describing is what I have been thinking of as Original Holiness. Original Justice encompasses that, and more. (Although, I’m not sure that last statement is accurate. Original Justice might not include Original Holiness—might be a separate thing. So I might be imprecise saying that Original Holiness is a part of Originals Justice. They existed together in the beginning and both were lost by the fall.)

CCC
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

 

[Teek]

What I would like to know is, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons (since they had no parents, therefore no mother who carried them in her womb attached to an umbilical cord)?

You are a true sage! Lol. A timeless question for the ages!

 

[tomarin]

You are a true sage! Lol. A timeless question for the ages!

Thanks. Upon reflection I would guess God gave them belly buttons for appearance’s sake.

 

[Teek]

Probably would have saved them from a couple awkward questions from the kids. Or utter complete freak outs.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I can think of at least one church father who didn’t believe an a literal interpretation of Genesis’ creation story – Augustine.

 

[Gorgias]

Yay! We figured out where we aren’t agreeing in our fundamental “backstory” to the proposed scenario.

Yes. I am defining Original Justice to include all of creation in the Garden of Eden. What you are describing is what I have been thinking of as Original Holiness. Original Justice encompasses that, and more. (Although, I’m not sure that last statement is accurate. Original Justice might not include Original Holiness—might be a separate thing.

I think they are. I’m gonna hafta go back to JPII’s Theology of the Body lectures and see what he says…

CCC
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

Right. But, does “being in harmony with creation” imply that the all of creation was in a state of stasis? If all of creation was evolving, then humans could still be “in harmony” with it.

Teek:

Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.

Note that the absence of harmony only means that creation is ‘hostile’ to humanity. On the other hand, sin exposes creation to ‘decay’ – but is evolution ‘decay’? Change doesn’t imply decay, does it?

 

[Teek]

Note that the absence of harmony only means that creation is ‘hostile’ to humanity. On the other hand, sin exposes creation to ‘decay’ – but is evolution ‘decay’? Change doesn’t imply decay, does it?

No, it doesn’t imply decay. I was referring to the specific mechanics of evolution: genetic mutation. Mutation is the only way new genetic material can arise in a population, right? So how does mutation occur? Either an error in replicating DNA, or damage. To me, these both are an absence of harmony.

 

[Teek]

Right. But, does “being in harmony with creation” imply that the all of creation was in a state of stasis? If all of creation was evolving, then humans could still be “in harmony” with it.

True. And my idea of the harmony of creation may be a bit too picturesque and fluffy. Lion lying down with the lamb and all that.

But if the cells of the animals are being preyed upon by error and damage, that is disorder and decay.