R
raaucoin
Guest
YES!!
- Status
B
beeliner
Guest
That is not true.
Catholics are certainly ALLOWED to believe that, or to believe that their story is allegory.
I’ll go with the allegory, for two reasons, well, actually, more than two, but chiefly:
- Human beings existed for at least a million years prior to the Biblical timeframe of Adam and Eve.
- BOTH creation stories (Gen 1:1ff and Gen 2:41/2 ff) are adaptations of earlier, clearly fictional pagan myths.
J
JW55
Guest
Pretty much been my opinion. I don’t think this conflicts with the Catholic position. The point at which man was able to separate good from evil, possessed guilt and operated in his actions beyond just instinct he became man and thus was separate from the animals.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Both.
S
sojo
Guest
I believe in Adam and Eve AND evolution. I remember reading something from the Pope (Benedict, I think, but it could have been JPII), and their explanation pretty much fits my own.
P
Publisher
Guest
Most Friends probably believe in some form of evolution…perhaps not “macro” evolution but “micro” evolution.
I do not believe Adam and Eve were literally created by God from the dirt of the earth…I believe we evolved over many millions of years from lower life forms through small constant changes that better equipped them to thrive in their enviroment.
For me and many Friends the whole issue of “original sin” has not basis in fact since Adam and Eve are part of the Genesis myth of creation.
Instead Genesis is a mythic telling of mankinds beginnings that explained why we suffer in this world…
I do not believe Adam and Eve were literally created by God from the dirt of the earth…I believe we evolved over many millions of years from lower life forms through small constant changes that better equipped them to thrive in their enviroment.
For me and many Friends the whole issue of “original sin” has not basis in fact since Adam and Eve are part of the Genesis myth of creation.
Instead Genesis is a mythic telling of mankinds beginnings that explained why we suffer in this world…
B
buffalo
Guest
I don’t think soooo…
*]The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"
*] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
*] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
*] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
*] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
*] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
*] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
*] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
*] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
*] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
*] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
*] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
*] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
*] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
*] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
*] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
*] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
*] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
*] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
*] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
*] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
T
The_Scott
Guest
Catholics are not allowed to be believe in Co-Adams and Co-Eves (as in, another Adam and Eve living simaltaineously from the couple within Genesis) or Pre-Adams and Pre-Eves (as in, there were people (with souls, etc) before Adam and Eve) (see Pius XII’s Humani Generis, chapter 37.
Just thought I’d clear that up.
Just thought I’d clear that up.
E
efen009
Guest
B
beeliner
Guest
Well, most of those are matters of religious faith, on which science is completely silent.
Only one of them, the one about “,one single human pair” seems to ‘cross the line’ into the realm of anthropology.
My two statements in the earlier post are matters of fact. The Church does not deny that mankind has existed for more than a million years, or that the two mutually contradictory creation tales in Genesis are not original, and if the Church did deny that, the Church would be wrong. But it doesn’t.
Literal interpretation of Scripture is about 200 years out of date, and is today the province mainly of the more extreme manifestations of Protestant fundamentalism.
I know of no instance in modern times in which Catholics are forbidden to believe established facts of science.
C
CMatt25
Guest
When I used to take more things in the Bible literally, I once believed in a 6 day, 24 hr creation with the evening and morn being a day… But as I’ve grown, I tend to no longer do.
B
buffalo
Guest
The above is the constant teaching and understanding of the Church. The Bible did not just fall out of the sky 200 years ago and know we have to apply a particular methodology to study it. We know what it means, because we knew from the beginning.
Established facts of science? Well know, with all the changing going on - should you believe today’s facts or yesterday’s? Pick one…
B
buffalo
Guest
As I have grown I need to pin science down more.
P
Publisher
Guest
Me as well…I found it odd to believe in a literal 24hour day when no sun or moon existed for the first few “days”…and the “light” created when God said…“Let there be light” certainly didnt’ wane in 24 hour increments to produce “night and day”…it is a mythic story.
B
buffalo
Guest
What is light? Is it always visible?
P
Publisher
Guest
Yes…if it’s always visible…how did “evening and morning” get into the picture? Did the newly created light wane and wax in 24hour increments before the sun and moon were created on the 4th day…after vegetation and animal life? Definitely poses problems for me in reading a literal 24hr day cycle…but then…that’s just me.
Z
Z_Ninja
Guest
He created light and separated darkness on the first day. calling the light day and the darkness night. that created the first “day”. the moon and sun were created on the fourth day. not necessarily what we would consider a 24-hour “day”. I suppose…Yes…if it’s always visible…how did “evening and morning” get into the picture? Did the newly created light wane and wax in 24hour increments before the sun and moon were created on the 4th day…after vegetation and animal life? Definitely poses problems for me in reading a literal 24hr day cycle…but then…that’s just me.
Personally, I choose to believe in Adam and Eve as the first humans. As far as evolution, big bang, or intelligent design and what not, if it happened it was through the will of God.
B
buffalo
Guest
The chiastic structure of Genesis:Yes…if it’s always visible…how did “evening and morning” get into the picture? Did the newly created light wane and wax in 24hour increments before the sun and moon were created on the 4th day…after vegetation and animal life? Definitely poses problems for me in reading a literal 24hr day cycle…but then…that’s just me.
**A. **Elohiym filled the sky and the land because it was empty and it was all in chaos so the wind of Elohiym settled upon the water (1:1 to 1:2)
**A1. **Day 1 - Elohiym separates (1:3 to 1:5, Day one)
**a. **light
**b. **dark
**A2. **Day 2 - Elohiym separates (1:6 to 1:8, Day two)
**a. **water
**b. **sky
**A3. **Day 3 - Elohiym separates(1:9 to 1:13, Day three
**a. **land
**b. **Plants spring up from the land
**B1. **Day 4 - Elohiym fills (1:14 to 1:19, Day four)
**a. **the light with the sun
**b. **the dark with the moon
**B2. **Day 5 - Elohiym fills (1:20 to 1:23, Day five)
**a. **fills the water with fish
**b. **fills the sky with birds
**B3. **Day 6 - Elohiym fills (1:24 to 1:31, Day six)
**a. **the land with animals and man
**b. **Plants are given as food
**B. **Elohiym Finishes his separating and filling of the sky and the land and respects the seventh day because in it he did his occupation (2:1 to 2:3, Day seven)
P
Publisher
Guest
I understand that the writer of Genesis used very mythic language…“evening and morning” exist for us because of the rotation of the Earth…“evenings” occur as the Earth moves rotates away from the sun…so separating darkness and light have no real meaning in the story in a literal sense…again…unless the “light” waxed and waned…darkness and light could not be separated into 24hour days.
I do believe all things were brought into existence by the Hand and Will of God…the mythic language used sought to express this…it was not a lesson in cosmology…but a statement of Whom the Creator is…the story was “incidental” and probably had it’s “final” version after the Exile and Captivity where the Jews learned other creation stories from their conqueror’s.
P
principio
Guest
The Creation story and evolution need to be reconciled in my mind. God’s methods will always remain mysterious and hard to accept.
While I don’t accept everything that evolution claims, it certainly makes sense a lot of the time.
By the same token, Creationism also makes sense as well in a lot of ways. But when I hear with absolute certainty that dinosaurs and cave men walked the Earth together, in an attempt to justify the literal translation of creation, you totally lose me.
Science is tangible, faith is supernatural, both have their place.
While I don’t accept everything that evolution claims, it certainly makes sense a lot of the time.
By the same token, Creationism also makes sense as well in a lot of ways. But when I hear with absolute certainty that dinosaurs and cave men walked the Earth together, in an attempt to justify the literal translation of creation, you totally lose me.
Science is tangible, faith is supernatural, both have their place.
- Status