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

[goout]

Catholicism requires a belief in two first human parents, body and soul.

In regards to Genesis and Adam and Eve:
The bible is a work of literature, and the first sense is “literal”. The words are there, and they mean something. The words cannot be disregarded.

That is a different concept that fundamentalist literalism which locks the words into a highly individualistic interpretation, using current contexts alone rather than seeing the work in it’s original context and applying it to today, reading it with the Church as a whole. (6 day creationism is an example of that)

 

[spina1953]

It does not really matter if the story in gen is true or not. No one was there to write what actually happened when the creation took place or it can’t be taken in a literal manor. One needs to read beyond the literal and see what the author intended his hearer’s to understand which was unlike the pagans who viewed creation form of chaos, the author in Gen. wanted his hearer’s to know that God effortlessly created all that is.

 

[Teek]

No one was there to write what actually happened when the creation took place or it can’t be taken in a literal manor.

Which is why the claim to divine Revelation is central. If it is made up, it is so many worthless words. If we know of it because God revealed it to us, it is important not to dismiss any of the levels of interpretation the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead us into the fullness of Truth, has taught.

It does not claim that the author is taking notes as it happened. So it can be taken literally. It does not appear that a literal interpretation is the truest understanding of the text, but that doesn’t dismiss it as myth, either.

 

[KevinK]

Why doesn’t the Church know the answer to this question and allow such a huge range of speculation on such an important matter?

 

[spina1953]

It is very doubtful that the author or authors of gen knew that they were inspired to write gen. They were writing to the various communities first orally long before it was ever written down. it was only later that these writings were considered inspired by God. The original authors of gen, may not have known that they were inspired when the story or stories were being told. While there is much to be understood in Gen. that the author or authors wanted known, what needs to understood is what did the authors intend the hearer’s to understand?

 

[Teek]

IT

MATTERS

TO

ME.

I don’t think that God has revealed the answer to us, and I don’t think science has the means to go that far back and know these details for certain. It wouldn’t matter at all which way He did it, because whatever and however He did it, He did it.

Contemplating what we do know, and considering the things of the universe, of creation, that we can observe, we come to know the Creator. It is part of His revelation of Himself to us.

Therefore, to me, it matters a lot.

The Church has not answered these questions, not because it doesn’t matter, but because we don’t know with enough certainty to define it clearly. What we do know, the Church has defined. We have two original human parents, God infuses the soul of every human being, the soul did not evolve, and God created all from nothing.

 

[phil19034]

Upon further inspection, the random soul giving might make more sense now, if we assume that God used evolution as a process to make humans fit for life, and then later distinguished them from animals when they were ready enough. Though it still seems a bit problematic to me, can’t tell why.

But that wouldn’t be random. If that was the process God used, then He would have selected which humanoids were to receive the souls and become Adam & Eve. So I don’t think “random soul giving” makes much philosophical sense.

 

[phil19034]

Plus, even the ancient Jews had many different thoughts on this subject.

 

[Teek]

Plus, even the ancient Jews had many different thoughts on this subject.

That’s true. But they all didn’t make it into the divinely inspired canon.

 

[edwest211]

It matters very much and we would have no salvation if we don’t understand Adam and Eve as the Church teaches. First, they were two literal persons. God gave them one command and they chose to disobey, which was the Original Sin. Why was Jesus Christ born? He was the Redeemer. His sacrifice was necessary for our salvation. He established His Church. Otherwise, we would not be Christians.

And if Genesis is not a science text then please refrain from referring to it as if it was. It contains spiritual and literal truths that science cannot tell us but the Church can.

 

[Metis1]

Whether one believes in a literal Adam & Eve or not, doesn’t change the value of the Creation narratives that basically deals with the covering of basic Jewish morals and values. The church fully recognizes that there is much symbolism used within the scriptures, and we may debate which are historically accurate and which are symbolic, but it’s the morals and values taught that are paramount.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught against evolution, and it was a Catholic priest that showed me that one can deal with these narratives as being allegory, I went on to eventually get a graduate degree in anthropology, taught it for 30 years, and converted to Catholicism when I was 30 years of age.

 

[Richca]

But here we are talking about genetically the same species, one without a soul and one with.

I can’t imagine if a human was sitting next to me without a soul, looking the same, but with no faculties of the soul. Would that be an acceptable alternative? No fit helper, as Genesis says.

Ahh, but the Bible says that this is exactly what Cain and Seth did, no?

No. That would be bestiality, a sin against nature. Not even the brute animals mate with others, for the most part, that are not of their same kind and species. The scripture says “Cain knew his wife”. The sacred author already established in Genesis 2 that a wife is a woman of the human species, a fit helper for man, not one of the brute animals. Neither is it possible for a man to marry a brute animal and by the same token for a brute animal to be the ‘wife’ of a man. Incidentally, the word for wife in the hebrew Old Testament is the same word used for woman and woman is what Adam called Eve when God brought her to him ''because she was taken out of man." Man and woman, husband/wife/marriage are terms we apply solely to the human race.

In Genesis 4:16, he high-tails it out of there, settles in Nod, and gets a wife there (and raises a family).

The scripture says “Cain knew his wife” presumably after he went to the land of Nod. This is not the same thing as saying he got a wife in the land of Nod. Maybe Cain took a wife with him to the land of Nod then knew her there.

In Genesis 4:26, Seth marries and starts a family. This, by the way, is the “uncomfortable fact” in the Bible narrative for those who wish a more literalistic interpretation: where did all these other people come from, with whom our (named & identified) characters married and raised families?

“The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). All these people are descendants of Eve and her husband Adam, the first human couple. Once the sacred author establishes this point, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to ask where did all these people come from and so the sacred author doesn’t go into the details of, for example, where did Cain’s wife come from. It appears that once the sacred writer sets down the creation of the first man and woman, the origin of the human race, he moves on from there without going into details. It is assumed that Cain’s wife, for example, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, a sister or even possibly a niece of Cain. The unity of the human race has always been taught by the Church and it is gathered from the sacred scriptures.

 

[Richca]

Gorgias:
Some have claimed that the Bible lists only some, but not all, of Eve’s children… and thus suggest that incest is the answer to the problem we’ve identified (whether between siblings or between parent and children). That’s not a particularly satisfying answer, either…

It was obviously not unlawful or sinful for sisters and brothers to marry in the beginnings of the propagation of the human race or the human race would have went extinct after the death of Adam and Eve’s children. The prohibitions concerning who can be a lawful marriage partner have changed according to the times and conditions of the human race by custom, human law, Divine Law (the Law of Moses), and ecclesiastical law for various reasons and once the human race was sufficiently established. It is not an intrinsic evil in itself for brothers and sisters to marry. St Thomas Aquinas says that the natural law forbids marriage between parents and children and therefore it is written “Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Before God gave a law to the Israelites through Moses, the Old Law, the human race was under the natural law. The Old Law has now been superceded by the New Law of Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

No. That would be bestiality, a sin against nature.

So, if there were two hominins standing next to you, identical physically (but theoretically only one having an eternal soul), you would point to the other and say “beast!” …???

The scripture says “Cain knew his wife”

Yes, the word “ishshaw” can mean either ‘wife’ or ‘woman’.

This is not the same thing as saying he got a wife in the land of Nod. Maybe Cain took a wife with him to the land of Nod then knew her there.

Maybe, but you’re adding to the narrative. It doesn’t say “Cain took his wife and went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelled in Nod”; it just says “Cain went and dwelled in the land of Nod.”

It is assumed that Cain’s wife, for example, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, a sister or even possibly a niece of Cain.

Right. So, yet again, we’re not discussing the kinds of marital relationships that fall under merely ecclesiastical law – we’re talking about marital relationships that are understood to stand in conflict with divine law: the marriage of a man to his sister or his sibling’s daughter. To make the claim you’re making, you have to set aside the fact that there’s a distinction between the kinds of inter-family marriages that are possible and those that are impossible to accept.

If you’re good with that, then your cries against “bestiality” ring hollow…

It was obviously not unlawful or sinful for sisters and brothers to marry in the beginnings of the propagation of the human race or the human race would have went extinct after the death of Adam and Eve’s children.

Ahh… but that’s only if your interpretation on it is correct.

The prohibitions concerning who can be a lawful marriage partner have changed according to the times and conditions of the human race by custom, human law, Divine Law (the Law of Moses), and ecclesiastical law for various reasons

Close. The “Divine Law” is not “the Law of Moses”. Mosaic law is a covenant. The Divine Law, on the other hand, are the “first and essential precepts which govern moral life” (CCC, 1955); although “its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue” (ibid), nevertheless the Divine Law “is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.” (CCC, 1958)

Therefore, brother-sister or niece-uncle (or, for that matter, nephew-aunt) marriages fall under the prohibition of the immutable Divine Law.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

I always though cains wife could be a hominid with no soul? is that possible and there offspring would have souls cause of cain.

 

[Benadam]

In the begginning the repulsive feeling attached to incest that we feel didn’t exist. The feeling is something put there over millenia.

When there were few families it’s thought that the natural law broken by incest was about uniting families. If possible a mate that wasnt a sibling was preferable because it eas better for the children to have two sets of grandparents. To marry a sibling when there was another family with an available spouse was a sin against the family. Would be odd and shameful. An opportunity to create a larger family increase family ties and to give uour children four grandparents instead of two were all reasons that incest became prohibited.

 

[Richca]

I always though cains wife could be a hominid with no soul?

I don’t think it can be reasonably inferred that Cain’s wife was other than a human woman. Firstly, as I mentioned above, the hebrew Old Testament uses the same word for wife and woman. And where woman comes from is set down in Genesis 2. A woman is a female member of the human species of Man and a wife is a woman who is married to some man. Secondly, God instituted marriage with the first human couple, Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. Marriage is properly between a man and a woman, not a man and a beast. A beast is not called the wife of a man but the scripture says that ‘Cain knew his wife.’ Thirdly, a hominoid with no rational soul is a beast, a brute animal, not a fit helper for man (cf. Genesis 2).

is that possible and there offspring would have souls cause of cain.

Supposing that a man has sex with a beast such as a hominid and further supposing that this beast somehow conceives offspring, I don’t see the necessity that the offspring would possess a rational soul and thus be a human being. Nature cannot produce man’s rational and spiritual soul. Man’s soul is immediately created by God. I don’t see any necessity that God would be obliged to create a rational and spiritual soul here in an act involving bestiality.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

“Supposing that a man has sex with a beast such as a hominid and further supposing that this beast somehow conceives offspring”

why not they are biologically the same? Studies have shown that homo sapiens and Neanderthals mated and had offspring. We have Neanderthal DNA in us excluding some sub Saharan Africans.

 

[Gorgias]

In the begginning the repulsive feeling attached to incest that we feel didn’t exist. The feeling is something put there over millenia.

The question, though, isn’t about ‘feelings’, but about immutable divine law. The suggestion being made here (which, to my mind, is ludicrous) is that God just kinda shrugged and said, “meh, don’t worry about it. it’s all relative, so go do what you need to do.”

In essence, the argument that @Richca brings to us suggests that God’s plan requires His own Divine Law to be broken – that is, that God participates in immoral acts (by setting up humanity in such a way that requires parent-child and/or uncle-niece incest). That’s just untenable.

When there were few families it’s thought that the natural law broken by incest was about uniting families.

We’re talking divine law, not merely ecclesiastical law. That’s why it cannot be broken, and especially, not sanctioned by God.

 

[Gorgias]

Thirdly, a hominoid with no rational soul is a beast, a brute animal, not a fit helper for man

We’re not claiming that Cain’s woman was a “fit helper”.

I don’t see any necessity that God would be obliged to create a rational and spiritual soul here in an act involving bestiality.

Really? But you do see that God – by virtue of the way you say He set up creation – is obliged to break His own Divine Law and create ensouled beings in an act involving incest? Odd…