Created from Adam's rib?

[edwest2]

As Catholics we MUST HOLD to the reality of our first parents; Adam and Eve as being real, and to the story of there fall from GRACE an Orginal Sin. We are not obligated to accept the rib story, though it seems to me to be as valid as any other I have heard put forth.

Can you point to any Church document that tells us that we are not obligated to accept the rib story?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Faith1960]

Yes. Did I say something that would suggest otherwise?

No, I was just wondering, because you don’t have it written down.

 

[Faith1960]

I get so upset when people ask a catholic who is not a literalist that question. The most sane thing about catholics is their freedom to excercise that right. No one should make anyone believe in a literal creation account because if they do, they are forcing people to believe in utter lies about the natural world.

Calm down – I agree with the both of you. I find it hard to believe the rib thing literally, too. I asked if he was Catholic because he didn’t specify it on his profile.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can you point to any Church document that tells us that we are not obligated to accept the rib story?

God bless,
Ed

What do you mean by accept it? All catholics accept it is in the bible. Do they all take it to be a literal rendering of the text? Do they have to? Catholics don’t have to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old either. Does that mean they don’t accept the bible, or does that mean they realize the bible is not a science book, and if it is being promoted as such it is the worst science out there.

 

[Pieman333272]

Can you point to any Church document that tells us that we are not obligated to accept the rib story?

God bless,
Ed

Humani Generis states Church Teaching on Genesis, including Eve being created from Adam’s rib, are wholly compatible with evolution so long as we accept the existence of Adam & Eve as our first human parents, the fall, and the creation of the soul independently of evolution (AKA it’s OK to say Eve was somebody’s daughter, besides God’s).

 

[edwest2]

Humani Generis states Church Teaching on Genesis, including Eve being created from Adam’s rib, are wholly compatible with evolution so long as we accept the existence of Adam & Eve as our first human parents, the fall, and the creation of the soul independently of evolution (AKA it’s OK to say Eve was somebody’s daughter, besides God’s).

Nowhere does Humani Generis say anything about Eve being somebody else’s daughter.

I realize this will be brought up in the future in an attempt to create an ongoing refutation of Church teaching.

“37. 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]”

Opinions can never supercede Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Forgive me if I am wrong. I am curious as to why you focus on this verse in particular like a few of the others before me. You seem to be at odds with this verse even though I remember Adam being created out of dust, or dirt. That is just as unbelievable.
Am I wrong in thinking that your objections are neither faith nor reason based but rather “feminine” in origin?

HAHAHA

“feminine”???

I loved this response

so polite

 

[SunshineZA]

What you are saying is that when God does something, it’s no longer immoral because he seems to choose a lot of immoral ways to get things done. I mean, immoral for us that is. Why couldn’t he have chosen morally acceptable ways, or I mean ways we realize are morally acceptable to do things in so many instances in the bible? Is that asking too much that he at least appear to be minimally as moral as we can be?

A great many biblical truths would be considered immoral according to today’s standards – examples are too numerous to recall. One example which stands out above all others, is the way Christ sacrificed His life for us and the extreme humility, torture and cruel death He endured in accordance with God’s will.

 

[StrawberryJam]

A great many biblical truths would be considered immoral according to today’s standards – examples are too numerous to recall. One example which stands out above all others, is the way Christ sacrificed His life for us and the extreme humility, torture and cruel death He endured in accordance with God’s will.

’

It stands out?

Really?