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

[goout]

I agree that a particular take on the issue is not essential for salvation.
It is of some importance because reams of discussion has been generated within the Church over the centuries dealing with Scripture interpretation etc…

Scripture exegesis and interpretation requires a lot of faith and trust in the human/divine interplay, and I believe that’s why we see such agony surrounding these issues: the desire for cut and dried answers that don’t require any discomfort or serious thought.

The more you look at how Scripture came to be, the more you realize that is is extremely messy and challenging. Much like the life of Christ.
It’s not a cut-and-paste life.

 

[Richca]

“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?

I think I already answered this. The human soul is not a product of nature but is immediately created by God. Now the whole of creation is dependent on God, not that God is dependent on creation. And God created the world not from necessity but by a free act of his will. So the whole of creation is dependent on God’s free choice which involves also the creation of human souls which is why I said I see no compelling reason why God would create and infuse a human soul into a non-human animal body. Whether God would or would not infuse a human soul into a non-human hominoid, I think we would have to ask God himself. However, in my opinion, I find a certain repugnance to reason for many reasons for the idea in question.

Secondly, I believe that there has never existed a human soul in a non human body and, conversely, that there ever existed a non human soul in a human body. This amounts to saying that the body of a true human being, in my opinion, was never biologically the same or identical to the body of any sub human animal species. Accordingly, I have reservations concerning the theory of the theological or philosophical human and the biological human. I think that the proper disposition of the body or matter for the reception of a human soul could have been prepared prior to the creation of the first man by God to a certain degree but not absolutely and completely. For one thing, since the human soul is not a product of nature but of creation, I believe that the formation and preparation of the first man’s body for the reception of the human soul involved a direct intervention of God. Holy Scripture seems to confirm this. For example, in the production of plants and animals in Genesis 1, God says “Let the earth bring forth” and “Let the waters bring forth.” In the creation of man in Genesis 1, God says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis 2, it is written, “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” So, scripture seems to express here that the creation of the first man, Adam, was done immediately by God not only as to his soul but also as to his body.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The Church says that it is not repugnant to divine revelation or the catholic faith that in the production and formation of the first man’s body, God may have used some pre-existent living matter although Gen. 2:7, literally speaking, appears to be of non-living matter. Notice that the Church has said ‘pre-existent living matter’ not some fully formed body of some sub-human animal species in which as some theories suggest God then infused a rational human soul so that at one moment, we have a irrational animal species and in the next moment we have a rational human being in the same body. There is something about this theory, in my opinion, that seems to be intuitively against reason and that just doesn’t add up. Even in such a hypothetical case as this suggestion or of the possibility of some pre-existent living matter such as, for example, the skin of some human-like animal, I believe that God would have had to tweek the matter or the supposed body in order for it to be properly disposed for the reception of the human soul, the form of the body. As I have said and philosophically speaking and in which Holy Scripture seems to confirm, I don’t think that the body of the first man or any human being could have been prepared sufficiently by the operation of nature alone for the reception of the human soul without a direct or immediate intervention of God.

(from wiggbuggie1) Studies have shown that homo sapiens and Neanderthals mated and had offspring. We have Neanderthal DNA in us excluding some sub Saharan Africans.

I think Teek has reasonably and sufficiently explained that the presence of Neanderthal DNA in us does not necessitate mating as neither does the shared DNA in fruit flys, mice, and humans.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

I’m sorry hard to follow this thread now lol, are you saying we share dna with fruit flyes and mice so it doesn’t matter if we share Neanderthal dna because its how we are made?

 

[Teek]

I’m sorry hard to follow this thread now lol, are you saying we share dna with fruit flyes and mice so it doesn’t matter if we share Neanderthal dna because its how we are made?

Truth always matters. Is it truth that we had to mate with Neanderthals to share their DNA?

For it to be true that it was necessary that our ancestors had to mate with Neanderthals in order to share DNA, we would be saying that we did not have a common ancestor to that of the Neanderthals—all commonality must be explained by mating. If it was NECESSARY to mate to have common genes.

Then we would also be saying that we mated with fruit flies quite a bit to share 60% of their DNA. And even more with mice, because we share 90% of our genome with them!

Therefor: it cannot be necessary.

It remains possible that we share some genes with Neanderthals because of cross-species mating, even if most of our common geneology is from shared ancestry. POSSIBLE. It is not excluded. But it is in no way necessary based on what we know of genetics. It is scientific speculation.

 

[Richca]

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

I’m not to sure what you mean here. Maybe you are implying simply whether Cain’s wife was a good wife or a bad wife. Or, that Cain’s wife was not a woman of the human species which by the way is a contradictory statement actually. Whatever be the case, I am claiming that Cain’s wife was a fit helper, that is, the wife and woman of Cain, a female member of the human species, a descendant of Adam and Eve and probably Cain’s sister.

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

[Gorgias] 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…

No, I do not see that. Yes, it would be odd if in the divine plan of the propagation of the human race from a single couple which would necessitate the marriage of brothers and sisters at least for a time, that this very necessity would involve a sin or the breaking of some eternal divine law. Accordingly, I do not believe that the marriage among brothers and sisters in the first beginnings of the propagation of the human race such as among the children of Adam and Eve involved the breaking of some eternal divine law or commandment
of God whether of the natural law or a positive expressed commandment. Sexual relations outside of a lawful marriage partner are always a sin and contrary to the natural law which is a participation of the eternal law. Who or who may not be a lawful marriage partner has varied according to the various times and for various reasons. The one constant which seems to be universally acknowledged and expressed it seems in Gen. 2 and thus according to the natural law is the prohibition of the marriage between parents and their children. Abraham’s wife Sarah was his half sister which I don’t think anybody in their right mind would consider an unlawful, sinful, or incestual marriage. However, the Law that God gave to Moses subsequently for the Israelites prohibited marriage with a half sister which I suppose could be termed an incestual marriage but which was not incestual for Abraham and Sarah. Moses’ own father, if I’m not mistaken, married his aunt which is also forbidden under the Old Law. The lines of consanquinity concerning who may be lawfully married in the Church have not always been constant either. The early Church forbade marriage down to seven lines, the medieval Church four lines, presently I’m not to sure what it is.

The point being that assuming the whole human race descended from Adam and Eve, the marriage between the children of Adam and Eve could not have been sinful. Now, that God appears to have propagated the whole human race from a first single couple, is not my personal inspired teaching or opinion but it comes from Sacred Scripture itself and the teaching of the Church and the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church.

Merry Christmas!

 

[wiggbuggie1]

that is a good point and I think we even share more dna and genetics with pigs/swines. Which also makes sense why they always use lab mice or do experiments on pigs since they are so close.

 

[Gorgias]

I said I see no compelling reason why God would create and infuse a human soul into a non-human animal body.

Isn’t this precisely what Genesis says God did? That is, that He created a person from the earth (i.e., non-human animal body) and then breathed the breath of life into him (i.e., infusion of human soul)?

However, in my opinion, I find a certain repugnance to reason for many reasons for the idea in question.

Yep. But somehow, mother-son or uncle-niece incest doesn’t seem repugnant to you.

This amounts to saying that the body of a true human being, in my opinion, was never biologically the same or identical to the body of any sub human animal species.

The soul is not a biological entity; so, there’s no such thing as a ‘biological’ distinction based on a human soul.

 

[Gorgias]

I am claiming that Cain’s wife was… probably Cain’s sister.

Right. Please address the fact that brother-sister incest isn’t prohibited as merely ecclesiastical law, but as a violation of the divine law.

I do not believe that the marriage among brothers and sisters … [is] the breaking of some eternal divine law or commandment of God whether of the natural law or a positive expressed commandment.

The Church disagrees with you. (Dispensations from merely ecclesiastical law – such as marriage between first cousins – are possible. Dispensations from divine law – such as marriage between parent and child or uncle and niece – are not possible.) I appreciate that you really, really want to make this case – for the sake of your argument – but it really doesn’t hold water. And, the cop-out that “it was ok at the beginning of creation” doesn’t work, since we’re talking about immutable divine law.

The point being that assuming the whole human race descended from Adam and Eve, the marriage between the children of Adam and Eve could not have been sinful.

Unless I’m mistaken, this is the logical fallacy of ‘affirming the consequent.’

Now, that God appears to have propagated the whole human race from a first single couple, is not my personal inspired teaching or opinion but it comes from Sacred Scripture itself and the teaching of the Church and the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church.

Nice try. The assertion being made here – that the child of an ensouled (i.e., ‘true’) human and a non-ensouled human would likewise be ensouled – also affirms that teaching. Therefore, attempting to appeal to the teaching doesn’t disprove the assertion, but merely attempts to besmirch it unfairly.

 

[Teek]

The assertion being made here – that the child of an ensouled (i.e., ‘true’) human and a non-ensouled human would likewise be ensouled – also affirms that teaching.

Actually, the soul has nothing to do with mating and parents. God instills the soul. He could do it with two parents with no soul, one parent with and one without, two with. He could NOT do it even if both had a soul. A soul is not passed from parent to child.

 

[Richca]

Gorgias,
Isn’t this precisely what Genesis says God did? That is, that He created a person from the earth (i.e., non-human animal body) and then breathed the breath of life into him (i.e., infusion of human soul)?

No. Earth, dust of the ground, is the inanimate dirt. Some translations use clay or slime which is a mixture of earth (soil, dirt, dust) and water which is also inanimate. I think your reading more into the text that is there, a form of severe eisegesis.

Yep. But somehow, mother-son or uncle-niece incest doesn’t seem repugnant to you.

Mother-son yes, uncle-niece no. I have already commented in previous posts about the prohibition of parent/children marriages which following Aquinas I believe to be of the natural law and which Genesis 2 seems to indicate and prohibit. The Old Law which is a divine law promulgated by God prohibited additional marriage partners (Leviticus 18) that in general were of close relations or living under the same roof as it were. Uncle/niece is not mentioned here. Caleb gave his daughter to his brother Othniel to be his wife (Joshua 15:17). The wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor was their niece (Gen. 11: 29). I have read that uncle/niece marriages are not uncommon among the Jews to this day. I believe the Church forbids this kind of marriage.

The soul is not a biological entity; so, there’s no such thing as a ‘biological’ distinction based on a human soul.

Well, a human soul is not going to work in any kind of animal body. As we know from the animals, there is a limit to cross-breeding. Have you ever considered that the human soul may have something to do with the human body constitution? The CCC says that the soul is the form of the body and that it animates the body. Without the soul, we don’t have a living body. This is obviously quite huge to say the least. Traditional catholic philosophy and metaphysics such as from the Thomistic school would not agree with your statement above at all. They argue that the reason why the human body is so constituted is because of its form, i.e., the soul. The soul is not for the body or matter, but the material body is for the soul. The form is what places some thing in its species or class of things and it is the determining principle of the organization of the matter of the thing (matter = undetermined principle of substance, potentiality) In other words, the human body is so constituted per God’s plan for its union with a human soul. The same is said of all other substances whether animate or inanimate.

Now, the rational human soul is said to have a couple of interior sense powers of a different order than irrational animals. And since the interior sense powers of the soul function in conjunction with the body or through some corporeal organ of the body such as the brain, it follows that the bodily constitution of a human being is not going to be identical to any sub-human like irrational animal. This is one argument I had in mind when I said in a previous post that I don’t believe there has ever been a non-human irrational hominoid with an identical biological body as the first man or woman.

Merry Christmas to All

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The assertion being made here – that the child of an ensouled (i.e., ‘true’) human and a non-ensouled human would likewise be ensouled – also affirms that teaching.

Actually, the soul has nothing to do with mating and parents.

It kinda does.

God doesn’t create a human soul in the absence of a child (which has been procreated by parents).

God instills the soul. He could do it with two parents with no soul, one parent with and one without, two with.

Agreed, but Catholic doctrine states that all true humans are the descendants of the first pair of true humans. That doesn’t, of itself, necessarily imply that all true humans are descendants of true humans, does it?

He could NOT do it even if both had a soul.

OK… that’s going a bit far, don’t you think?

A soul is not passed from parent to child.

Who ever suggested that?!?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Isn’t this precisely what Genesis says God did? That is, that He created a person from the earth (i.e., non-human animal body) and then breathed the breath of life into him (i.e., infusion of human soul)?

No. Earth, dust of the ground, is the inanimate dirt. Some translations use clay or slime which is a mixture of earth (soil, dirt, dust) and water which is also inanimate. I think your reading more into the text that is there, a form of severe eisegesis.

Really? “the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” That’s literally the text of Genesis 2:7. “Eisegesis” is when you take a verse and twist it to fit your own opinion – you know, like when a person says that the Bible means that Adam & Eve’s family committed incest? – but what I’ve done is quote the Scriptures. Big (and not too subtle) difference, there…

Richca:

Gorgias:

Yep. But somehow, mother-son or uncle-niece incest doesn’t seem repugnant to you.

Mother-son yes, uncle-niece no.

Fine. Then what about aunt-nephew? No matter how you slice it, then according to your conjecture there had to have been sexual unions that are prohibited by divine law. That’s the part that I just can’t see how you’re willing to simply shrug off.

Richca:

Gorgias:

The soul is not a biological entity; so, there’s no such thing as a ‘biological’ distinction based on a human soul.

Well, a human soul is not going to work in any kind of animal body.

The suggestion isn’t “any kind of animal body” – rather, the suggestion is that the body is physically identical to a human body. Your attempt to discuss cross-breeding is a red herring.

And since the interior sense powers of the soul function in conjunction with the body or through some corporeal organ of the body such as the brain, it follows that the bodily constitution of a human being is not going to be identical to any sub-human like irrational animal.

Certainly it does not.

The function might not be identical, but the “bodily constitution” clearly is.

This is one argument I had in mind when I said in a previous post that I don’t believe there has ever been a non-human irrational hominoid with an identical biological body as the first man or woman.

And this is where you lose anyone who knows anything about science. Scientists tell us that there was never a bottleneck of humans less than 10K individuals, let alone only two. Therefore, when you make statements like this one, you make Christian doctrine lose all credibility. (Incidentally, Augustine makes just this prediction in his discussion of how interpretation of Genesis can make Christians look silly and make non-Christians dismiss us as rubes. )

 

[Benadam]

this is how it happenned
And The Virgin gave birth to the Son of God the Immortal Conception.So God found it fitting for Adam to be raised in immortal love Adam’s mother recieved an immortal soul uuummmmmmwhen when the sigtht of Adam reached her,uuummmm eyeballs:rofl:

 

[Teek]

God doesn’t create a human soul in the absence of a child (which has been procreated by parents).

Uh, except that. You are right, God gives us the dignity of cooperating in procreation. I meant that the human parents have no power, innate or otherwise, to pass on a soul.

Agreed, but Catholic doctrine states that all true humans are the descendants of the first pair of true humans. That doesn’t, of itself, necessarily imply that all true humans are descendants of true humans, does it?

Yes—they are all descendants of the first pair of true humans. But if you meant “That doesn’t, of itself, necessarily imply that all true humans are descendants of ONLY true humans, does it?”, which I think you are conveying, it would take some extra assumptions to say that it meant that. It also takes extra assumptions to say the opposite. It is not fully explained.

“He could NOT do it even if both had a soul.”

OK… that’s going a bit far, don’t you think?

I worded that so badly I am ashamed! I meant that God could decide not to give a soul even if both parents had a soul, not that there is something God can NOT do. I am not saying that God has ever withheld a soul under those circumstances, but was indicating (or trying to in a miserably unclear way) that He deliberately infuses a soul.

“A soul is not passed from parent to child.”

Who ever suggested that?!?

I may have made an incorrect inference. I was understanding the idea that there must be one parent with a soul for the offspring to have a soul to be a more organically spiritual means of passing a soul to the next generation.

I am not sure that it matters whether all
People descended from Adam and Eve alone or Adam and Eve alone plus external entrances to the genomic tree. I like the way the Church teaches it, leaving open all possibilities that aren’t excluded, but teaching with certainty those things that are known. And I love these concersations, with people willing to think through all the nuances of each implication of different beliefs. @Gorgias has a great mind! We don’t agree on a lot of smaller points, but it has been a pleasure to give it a shot! Thanks you!

For me, I love the intricacy of God. I can’t wait to get to know all that He wishes us to know. For me, that alone is an endless incentive to try to follow Christ with all of my heart. How amazing is the mind of God!

 

[Gorgias]

it would take some extra assumptions to say that it meant that. It also takes extra assumptions to say the opposite. It is not fully explained.

Right. Just like it would take extra assumptions to say “there was incest in the Adam & Eve family, in order to create the humans that the Bible does discuss.” So, both require extra-textual supposition. Anyone who claims that their position is correct, merely on the basis of the Scriptural text… well, is pulling your leg.

I meant that God could decide not to give a soul even if both parents had a soul, not that there is something God can NOT do.

No, I got what you were saying – this clarification was what I was really responding to, not the way you phrased it. To suggest that God would fail to create a human soul for a child of a human parent is horrific. It would go against God’s nature (and his command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’)…

 

[Teek]

No, I got what you were saying – this clarification was what I was really responding to, not the way you phrased it. To suggest that God would fail to create a human soul for a child of a human parent is horrific. It would go against God’s nature (and his command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’)… :man_shrugging

Oh, in that case: I agree with you.

I am not saying that God has ever withheld a soul under those circumstances, but was indicating (or trying to in a miserably unclear way) that He deliberately infuses a soul.

If He so desired, it could be. And it would be for good. If it wasn’t for good, He wouldn’t, consistent with His nature. Which is why I don’t think it has happened.

 

[Richca]

Really? “the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” That’s literally the text of Genesis 2:7. “Eisegesis” is when you take a verse and twist it to fit your own opinion – you know, like when a person says that the Bible means that Adam & Eve’s family committed incest? – but what I’ve done is quote the Scriptures. Big (and not too subtle) difference, there…

From what I gather I think your stuck between a rock and a hard place. Scenario 1: the children of Adam and Eve marry and produce offspring. Difficulties in your view - incest.

Scenario 2: the children of Adam and Eve interbreed with non-human hominoids. Difficulties - bestiality, a mortal sin; God designed the propagation of the human race to be accomplished by evil mortally sinful acts; assumes a human being would be conceived by a sex act between a human and an animal and then raised presumably by either the human or animal or both together; assumes an animal that is biologically the same as a human and so on. That God would have designed the propagation of the human race who are made in his own image and likeness in this scenario is simply incomprehensible and absurd.

Scenario 3: there are many first humans, thousands even, based on some scientific studies. Difficulties - science is subject to error; uncertainty; the seemingly clear teaching of Holy Scripture, the word of God; the teaching of the Church; the certainty of the revealed doctrine of original sin (CCC#403) which is transmitted by propagation and which as the CCC says “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ”; a substitution of the uncertainties of science in place of the revealed certain word of God as the foundation of catholic faith

 

[Richca]

Richca
And since the interior sense powers of the soul function in conjunction with the body or through some corporeal organ of the body such as the brain, it follows that the bodily constitution of a human being is not going to be identical to any sub-human like irrational animal.

[Gorgias]Certainly it does not.

The function might not be identical, but the “bodily constitution” clearly is.

A biological or physiological function that is peculiar to humans is going to require a peculiar human genome or something of the sort whether or not the genetic intricacies or whatever else is involved with said function have been identified by scientific study or not. If we have learned anything from science in the last 100 years or so or even from last year it is not what we know but what we don’t know. Amazing discoveries are being made constantly including in genetics. For example, studies are indicating that what is known as junk DNA which was previously considered to amount to over 90% of the DNA in humans may not be junk DNA after all. Considering the enormous number of base pairs of DNA this supposed junk DNA involves, the potential discoveries are staggering. Recently, an article was published by two biology scientists from the University of Utah indicating a ‘tripling’ as it were of the genetic code complexity involving codons. An article at physics. org explains “University of Utah biologists now suggest that connecting amino acids to make proteins in ribosomes, the cell’s protein factories, may in fact be influenced by sets of three triplets – a “triplet of triplets” that provide crucial context for the ribosome.” Fascinating! The complexity of the human body is mind boggling. Praise be to God!

 

[Gorgias]

Scenario 2: the children of Adam and Eve interbreed with non-human hominoids. Difficulties - bestiality, a mortal sin

I don’t see this as ‘bestiality’, since they’re mating with individuals physically identical to themselves, and therefore, no “evil mortally sinful acts.”

If we have learned anything from science in the last 100 years or so or even from last year it is not what we know but what we don’t know.

Well, that’s a nice speech and all… but it’s non-responsive to my rebuttal. Your discussion of DNA and genetic code and ribosomes goes to my point, not yours: the “bodily constitution” of the first two true humans and the (proposed) non-ensouled, physically-identical hominins of their day would have been identical. Thanks for buttressing my point.