Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[thequeen]

Yes I believe that a man and woman named Adam and Eve were created by God as the first humans by forming Adam from the dust of the ground and later Eve by causing a deep sleep to fall on Adam and then taking a rib from Adam and with that rib he created woman I cannot explain it any other way because that is what Scripture and The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches and I believe everything it teaches.

 

[AyJSimon]

First, I find it interesting, and hopeful, that the idea of one man and one woman being the first humans doesn’t pose a problematic issue for you. It doesn’t for me, either, even though I am an evolutionist.

It is problematic for me, actually, but I was letting it pass for the sake of asking a question about how Catholics reason through what I viewed as an inconsistency.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes I believe that a man and woman named Adam and Eve were created by God as the first humans by forming Adam from the dust of the ground and later Eve by causing a deep sleep to fall on Adam and then taking a rib from Adam and with that rib he created woman I cannot explain it any other way because that is what Scripture and The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches and I believe everything it teaches.

 

[thistle]

My question is as simple as that. I’m curious.

Catholics are REQUIRED to believe in Adam and Eve. Its not optional.

 

[Dorothy]

Yes, the Church requires the faithful to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, our first parents. That does not mean that Genesis is completely literal. But God did something special to our first parents to make them in his image. To separate us from the Animals.

I personally believe God used evolution to develop the human form, and at the right time he set aside two…Adam and Eve… and breathed their souls into them and they became the first true humans as we know it.

The Encyclical “Humani Generis” explains about that. Thank you!

 

[truetofaith]

It could have been. But what the tree’s fruit was - Knowledge-giving, giving the capability to be good or evil - is more important.

I have no horse for or against a literal interpretation of Genesis. My honest opinion is agnosticism. What I do know is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and wrought original sin upon the human race, and man has suffered for it ever since. And it was this sin for which Our Lord climbed onto the Tree of the cross and became God’s Tree of Knowledge, from which we may eat and become like God.

In other words, even if God made a literal tree in a literal garden that a literal man and woman ate the literal fruit of, God gave us a superior Tree that may as well have been that tree. And that Tree is the Cross.

Genesis 3 : 6 “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food & pleasing to the eye, & also desirable for gaining wisdom, she ate it…& gave some to her husband, who was with her & he ate it.”

If this eating of fruit is only symbolic…why would the inspired writer of the scripture give such detail as : “good for food, pleasing to the eye & for gaining wisdom?”
If it was book knowledge, it wouldn’t be good for food or pleasing to the eye!

 

[boldlygo]

Yes. If you don’t believe in Adam & Eve, you don’t believe the Bible. Therefore you’re calling God a liar, right from the start!

Do you also ‘believe in’ the Nephilim [Gen 6:1-5]? How about the sea monsters [Gen 1:21]?
The Tower of Babel [Gen 11:1-9]? The fact that I don’t ‘believe in’ these things doesn’t mean I’m calling God a liar…it means that I recognize the fact that the first eleven chapters of Genesis [up to Abraham] are faith stories - stories that are told in terms that are familiar to the audience, and teach truth [there is only one God; God is an all-powerful being Who created the universe, the earth, and everything in them; we, as human beings, are created in God’s image, etc].
Were Adam and Eve real people? In the sense that we do have one man and one woman as biological ancestors, yes they were real. Did they live in the Garden of Eden? Probably not…

 

[TarkanAttila]

Genesis 3 : 6 “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food & pleasing to the eye, & also desirable for gaining wisdom, she ate it…& gave some to her husband, who was with her & he ate it.”

If this eating of fruit is only symbolic…why would the inspired writer of the scripture give such detail as : “good for food, pleasing to the eye & for gaining wisdom?”
If it was book knowledge, it wouldn’t be good for food or pleasing to the eye!

The problem is you’re still working within the metaphor. One has to get outside of the metaphor to demonstrate it is more than a metaphor.

The reason Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are not metaphors is because these events had real-world consequences. It was because Christ rose, and taught, that St. Paul taught what He had taught, and taught that there is a Resurrection. And it is because of Adam’s original sin that Jesus came, so the original sin is no metaphor. Original sin is real.

But of what import is it that there was a tree, or fruit? What effect would it have if there was no tree, or fruit? The metaphor would break down, yes. But is there some husk of a fruit that Christ told us to eat that came from that tree in the Garden? Did Our Lord climb that Tree to be crucified? Did Our Lord kill that snake, or did He kill the devil?

I’m not saying it didn’t happen literally, taking the words at face value. I’m just saying there’s no need to believe that anything other than Adam and Eve as the first real people, God, and their disobedience to God, is literally true. It doesn’t significantly change the story.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Catholics are REQUIRED to believe in Adam and Eve. Its not optional.

Well, one thing the Church has given most of us is a high tolerance for being busted. So when it comes to a literal Adam and Eve, I guess I’m busted again, but I really don’t believe in the story of Adam and Eve, and I really will need someone to tell me precisely what they did rather than to say it’s a metaphor for something before I feel in the least bit guilty about anything. Tell me what they did in real and specific terms and we’ll talk about it, but until then, I’m just not feelin’ the guilt fellas.

Now, one thing we should be careful to do on a religious forum us to be honest. And while I am a Catholic, I am also doing my best to be honest. I am weary of being told “well, it was disobedience of some sort, but it really wasn’t a tree and it really wasn’t fruit, but trust us - you are guilty.” I just don’t feel guilty or accountable for anything that can’t be named specifically. So someone please feel free to name it and we’ll talk about it. And as to what I am required to believe, well, my mind is mine an anyone who wants to tell me what to think had better be prepared to tell me why I should think it.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Hans_W]

Catholics are REQUIRED to believe in Adam and Eve. Its not optional.

Here are a couple of links posted on another thread around this question.
These are all statements coming from the Catholic Church wrestling with findings from modern science and on how to mesh them with the Bible.
No doubt, we’ll get further clarification from Pope Francis in the near future.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi…i-generis.html (Pius XII, 1950)
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM (Paul VI, 1969)
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm (John Paul II, 1996)

(sorry, the first link sometimes works, sometimes it doesn’t)

 

[TarkanAttila]

“well, it was disobedience of some sort, but it really wasn’t a tree and it really wasn’t fruit, but trust us - you are guilty.”

Guilty? Who taught you Catholics teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin?

We inherit a tendency to sin. We lack the grace that Adam and Eve lost. We inherit death, disease, and the madness that is concupiscence. But anyone who told you we inherit their GUILT is either a Calvinist, or misinformed.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Well, one thing the Church has given most of us is a high tolerance for being busted. So when it comes to a literal Adam and Eve, I guess I’m busted again, but I really don’t believe in the story of Adam and Eve, and I really will need someone to tell me precisely what they did rather than to say it’s a metaphor for something before I feel in the least bit guilty about anything. Tell me what they did in real and specific terms and we’ll talk about it, but until then, I’m just not feelin’ the guilt fellas.

Now, one thing we should be careful to do on a religious forum us to be honest. And while I am a Catholic, I am also doing my best to be honest. I am weary of being told “well, it was disobedience of some sort, but it really wasn’t a tree and it really wasn’t fruit, but trust us - you are guilty.” I just don’t feel guilty or accountable for anything that can’t be named specifically. So someone please feel free to name it and we’ll talk about it. And as to what I am required to believe, well, my mind is mine an anyone who wants to tell me what to think had better be prepared to tell me why I should think it.

All the best,
Gary

I am not sure how old you are Gary, but if you have made it to the age you are without sinning let me be the first to congratulate you!!

I will be 63 in a few weeks and I am sure that I committed my first sin by the age of 7. I know that wasn’t the last sin either. Of course, I am talking about venial sins. And their were a few more serious sins that I confessed to that i committed as an adult. Man has a fallen nature. If you don’t feel guilty about anything then you are very unique.

 

[grannymh]

Well, one thing the Church has given most of us is a high tolerance for being busted. So when it comes to a literal Adam and Eve, I guess I’m busted again, but I really don’t believe in the story of Adam and Eve, and I really will need someone to tell me precisely what they did rather than to say it’s a metaphor for something before I feel in the least bit guilty about anything. Tell me what they did in real and specific terms and we’ll talk about it, but until then, I’m just not feelin’ the guilt fellas.

Now, one thing we should be careful to do on a religious forum us to be honest. And while I am a Catholic, I am also doing my best to be honest. I am weary of being told “well, it was disobedience of some sort, but it really wasn’t a tree and it really wasn’t fruit, but trust us - you are guilty.” I just don’t feel guilty or accountable for anything that can’t be named specifically. So someone please feel free to name it and we’ll talk about it. And as to what I am required to believe, well, my mind is mine an anyone who wants to tell me what to think had better be prepared to tell me why I should think it.

All the best,
Gary

Trust me. You do not bear the guilt of Original Sin.

You are a descendant of the person who committed the Original Sin. As a human descendant, you received Adam’s fallen, yet not destroyed, human nature post Fall and not Adam’s guilt. For us, Original Sin is a contracted state.

Original Sin happens to be the name of the event which destroyed Adam’s relationship with his Creator. Or one can say that Original Sin names the result of the event which destroyed Adam’s relationship with his Creator. What Adam did was to freely destroy his relationship with his Creator and this destruction is transmitted to his descendants via human propagation. What we receive is the contracted State of Original Sin which is a deprivation of Adam’s original relationship with his Creator. For us, Original Sin is contracted and not committed.

When we consider that Original Sin refers to a shattered relationship between humanity and Divinity, we naturally look for the human action of smashing God’s relationship with us. We learn from Genesis 3: 11 that the action was specifically disobedience. Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act Adam, the creature, scorned His Creator. (Information source. CCC 396-409)

As I work through this reply, perhaps the name of the sin is contempt, that is, scorn.

Personally, I do not ask for agreement with the above. All I hope for is that the above is accepted as a reasonable answer. Obviously, I have not answered concerns about the organic fruit tree. I thought that the “name” of the sin was more important and thus first.

Thoughts?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Guilty? Who taught you Catholics teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin?

We inherit a tendency to sin. We lack the grace that Adam and Eve lost. We inherit death, disease, and the madness that is concupiscence. But anyone who told you we inherit their GUILT is either a Calvinist, or misinformed.

Good evening TarkanAttila: I hope you are well this evening. It is my belief that we inherited death and disease simply by being living creatures. We evolved from earlier forms of primates, and primates evolved from other forms of life before them. All of them had suffering and death before we came along. It is not something we created or caused. It is simply a condition that attends the cycle of all living things. This is plainly observable in the world around us, and requires no mystical insight to reconcile or explain.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I am not sure how old you are Gary, but if you have made it to the age you are without sinning let me be the first to congratulate you!!

I will be 63 in a few weeks and I am sure that I committed my first sin by the age of 7. I know that wasn’t the last sin either. Of course, I am talking about venial sins. And their were a few more serious sins that I confessed to that i committed as an adult. Man has a fallen nature. If you don’t feel guilty about anything then you are very unique.

Good Evening 7 Sorrows: There has never been a saint who was good every minute of their lives. Conversely, there has never been a sinner who was bad every moment of theirs. I have done a lot of things that I consider to be good, and a lot of things that I consider to be bad. We are neither good or bad as I see it. What makes humans different than other animals is that through specialization of cognition, we have given the syntax of good and bad to what we do. The contexts in which we frame things as good are bad were probably simply utilitarian at first, and over time gained currency in our collective psyche as moral imperatives. I think that in truth we are neither good or bad. We actuate potentials trough doing, and we label the outcomes based on values we ourselves have created.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Trust me. You do not bear the guilt of Original Sin.

You are a descendant of the person who committed the Original Sin. As a human descendant, you received Adam’s fallen, yet not destroyed, human nature post Fall and not Adam’s guilt. For us, Original Sin is a contracted state.

Original Sin happens to be the name of the event which destroyed Adam’s relationship with his Creator. Or one can say that Original Sin names the result of the event which destroyed Adam’s relationship with his Creator. What Adam did was to freely destroy his relationship with his Creator and this destruction is transmitted to his descendants via human propagation. What we receive is the contracted State of Original Sin which is a deprivation of Adam’s original relationship with his Creator. For us, Original Sin is contracted and not committed.

When we consider that Original Sin refers to a shattered relationship between humanity and Divinity, we naturally look for the human action of smashing God’s relationship with us. We learn from Genesis 3: 11 that the action was specifically disobedience. Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act Adam, the creature, scorned His Creator. (Information source. CCC 396-409)

As I work through this reply, perhaps the name of the sin is contempt, that is, scorn.

Personally, I do not ask for agreement with the above. All I hope for is that the above is accepted as a reasonable answer. Obviously, I have not answered concerns about the organic fruit tree. I thought that the “name” of the sin was more important and thus first.

Thoughts?

God Evening Granny. You know I always love hearing from you and I hope you’re healthy and happy these days. What you have posted is the kindest and most thoughtful of ways in which Christian doctrine can be expressed on the matter, and this is one of your gifts to be sure.

That said, you know that I don’t believe that we are descendant from any singular couple who lived in a garden where things were perfect. But if I were to believe it, I would save your explanation and use it every time, because it’s the best.

Your friend,
Gary

 

[7_Sorrows]

Good Evening 7 Sorrows: There has never been a saint who was good every minute of their lives. Conversely, there has never been a sinner who was bad every moment of theirs. I have done a lot of things that I consider to be good, and a lot of things that I consider to be bad. We are neither good or bad as I see it. What makes humans different than other animals is that through specialization of cognition, we have given the syntax of good and bad to what we do. The contexts in which we frame things as good are bad were probably simply utilitarian at first, and over time gained currency in our collective psyche as moral imperatives. I think that in truth we are neither good or bad. We actuate potentials trough doing, and we label the outcomes based on values we ourselves have created.

All the best,
Gary

Okay. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am one of those people who is prone to feeling guilty. My mother was that way also and my dad. So I guess you have a good outlook on life!

 

[truetofaith]

From this discussion, now I understand why Protestants think we Catholics are just like heathens!

 

[pianistclare]

Here are a couple of links posted on another thread around this question.
These are all statements coming from the Catholic Church wrestling with findings from modern science and on how to mesh them with the Bible.
No doubt, we’ll get further clarification from Pope Francis in the near future.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi…i-generis.html (Pius XII, 1950)
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM (Paul VI, 1969)
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm (John Paul II, 1996)

(sorry, the first link sometimes works, sometimes it doesn’t)

The Catholic Church is not “wrestling” with anything. The Creation stories employ many literary genres. The Bible teaches us truths. The stories, allegories, parables, and what not are methods to illustrate those truths. There are literal parts of the Bible, but one has to realize that the audience fro the Old Testament is quite different from the audience for the New Testament, and still very different to today’s audience. But the truth remains.
This has been the position of the church for centuries.
Pope Francis likely will affirm what the Church has always taught, but he will not change anything. People will likely think he thought up something new. But it’s not new. People just don’t know their faith.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Good evening TarkanAttila: I hope you are well this evening. It is my belief that we inherited death and disease simply by being living creatures. We evolved from earlier forms of primates, and primates evolved from other forms of life before them. All of them had suffering and death before we came along. It is not something we created or caused. It is simply a condition that attends the cycle of all living things. This is plainly observable in the world around us, and requires no mystical insight to reconcile or explain.

All the best,
Gary

True. I have no dispute with that. Before we had sapient souls, however, we had no spiritual death. Or at least, it was an inconsequential death.

But our souls, which are superior to our bodies, were made for immortality. So when Paul says “death entered the world”, and when God says, “Eat this fruit and you will die”, both are not talking of physical death. Indeed, the serpent would only be lying if it were referring to a spiritual death - which is the death Adam and Eve underwent. And that’s the death original sin confers.

And again, I don’t think it’s necessary to take the tree, the garden, or the serpent literally. Even the idea of Adam and Eve being the only two physical humans is not necessary, I think.