Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter religioussoup
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
From the Catholic position, the issue is not endorsing scientific explanations for facts.
Click to expand...
Right. Then why are you doing just that?
That sounds like a strawman or whatever.

The actual Catholic issue is explained in post 133 above.

For readers information.
There are Catholics who are smart enough to recognize the difference between a population in the thousands and a population of two. By the way, knowing the difference between a quantity of a thousand and the quantity of two – Is that what is meant by engaging in scientific theorizing? 😉
Click to expand...
Pardon me…
Post 133 is your opinion with a small amount of Church teaching interspersed. It’s there for everyone to see. You use the Church to fit your opinion rather than addressing what the Church actually says.

Fascinating that a document from a Pope is not worthy of your assent as a Catholic because it contradicts what you assert by opinion.
 
clem456 said:
Fascinating that a document from a Pope is not worthy of your assent as a Catholic because it contradicts what you assert by opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s called Cognitive Dissonance. That’s when you are confronted by new information that conflicts with your existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

One way of getting rid of cognitive dissonance is to ignore new incoming information.
 
Hans_W said:
This article is for grannymh and her Catechism. It was published in December 2000. The Church moves slowly, sometimes rightfully so, but eventually we’ll catch up with our scientific understanding of nature.

americamagazine.org/issue/392/article/creationism-and-catechism

(also read the comments, positive and negative)
Click to expand...
I started to read but couldn’t get past the condescending tone of the first paragraph.
The catechism is not the place for the Church to address scientific issues.

The Church can’t address every random bit of fundamentalism and confusion over scientific issues in a definitive teaching document.
 
One more point:

If Catholics can’t accept observable reality as it is uncovered, how can we expect to be taken seriously when pointing to revealed nature in other issues?

For instance, it is revealed in nature that men and women have a unique complementarity (start another thread please).

Pointing to revealed nature as a defense of marriage is an appeal to reason. We would like gay marriage proponents to see the self evident realities that we see. Any reasonable person can observe facts. We don’t have to point to our own peculiar religious beliefs for facts to be facts.

If we insist on un-reasonable positions that are not supported by facts -or- by the Church, we cannot expect to be taken seriously in any event.
“Because the bible says so” might be good enough for we who believe, but it’s not a good enough appeal to the reason of a non-believer. Ultimately we must be reasonable, because faith and reason cannot contradict one another.

By trying to fit science into the realm of religious opinion and unsupported fundamentalist readings of the bible, we do not contribute to a well-reasoned culture.
 
clem456 said:
One more point:

If Catholics can’t accept observable reality as it is uncovered, how can we expect to be taken seriously when pointing to revealed nature in other issues?

For instance, it is revealed in nature that men and women have a unique complementarity (start another thread please).

Pointing to revealed nature as a defense of marriage is an appeal to reason. We would like gay marriage proponents to see the self evident realities that we see. Any reasonable person can observe facts. We don’t have to point to our own peculiar religious beliefs for facts to be facts.

If we insist on un-reasonable positions that are not supported by facts -or- by the Church, we cannot expect to be taken seriously in any event.
“Because the bible says so” might be good enough for we who believe, but it’s not a good enough appeal to the reason of a non-believer. Ultimately we must be reasonable, because faith and reason cannot contradict one another.

By trying to fit science into the realm of religious opinion and unsupported fundamentalist readings of the bible, we do not contribute to a well-reasoned culture.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that many non Catholics or other conservative people of other faith traditions are convinced that “it is revealed in nature that men and women have a unique complementarity”. That way of talking about men and women sounds very Catholic and traditional.
 
Thorolfr said:
I’m not sure that many non Catholics or other conservative people of other faith traditions are convinced that “it is revealed in nature that men and women have a unique complementarity”. That way of talking about men and women sounds very Catholic and traditional.
Click to expand...
The last time you looked, did men have a penis, and women a vagina, and do you imagine they might fit together in a unique way that no other parts do? That’s what we mean by complementarity (or the very basics of it anyway).
And by the way, your denial of observable reality puts you right into bed with fundamentalists. (no pun intended)

START ANOTHER THREAD, it’s ancillary to the issue.
 
clem456 said:
Right. Then why are you doing just that?

Pardon me…
Post 133 is your opinion with a small amount of Church teaching interspersed. It’s there for everyone to see. You use the Church to fit your opinion rather than addressing what the Church actually says.

Fascinating that a document from a Pope is not worthy of your assent as a Catholic because it contradicts what you assert by opinion.
Click to expand...
May I respectfully suggest that readers who are interested in the current science of human evolution read post 133 and then google cladistics cladograms. There are some fascinating drawings. Some illustrations of the “beginning of life” may or may not be redrawn due to a recent challenge to the work of Dr. Carl Woese.

Note: This is a reputable site. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Some younger readers may not know the scientific reference to the Piltdown Man era. That was a great theory until the hoax was proven. This is my own opinion. To me, the work of dedicated scientists during that period emphasized the need for precise genetic descriptions for individual species. Still, scientists will point to the brow ridge as physical evidence of a species.

But I digress. My point is that there is a lot of *stuff *involved in the science of human evolution. As pointed out in post 133, there is a particular conclusion which intersects with the Catholic doctrine on human origin.
From post 133.
“In English, the above means that the science of human evolution concludes that two sole real true fully-complete human parents are not the originating founders of the human species. Instead, an originating humanizing population of random breeding individuals in hundreds to thousands is the only source of humankind. It should not surprise people that the Catholic Church would challenge this conclusion.”

Regarding the Address of Saint John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

If this thread starts discussing human nature as taught by the Catholic Church, my suggestion is to study paragraph 5. Saint John Paul II directly opposes another science of human evolution theory. He uses the very strong words of “incompatible with the truth of man.”
 
truetofaith said:
Carmen, you have gone through a lot of pain but have a very strong Faith in God because He brought you through it all.

I believe in the Bible & also in the Catholic Church, as being given the power to change bread & wine into the Body & Blood of Jesus…directly from Jesus at the Last Supper.

I was taught evolution in Catholic school but we were taught that it was still a theory.

The part in Genesis that said the animals were created “according to their own kind” doesn’t quite agree with evolution.
People here say don’t take the Bible literally …but EVERY word or concept in the Bible is there for a reason.
Our God is not the God of confusion! :tsktsk: :juggle:
Click to expand...
I agree. God is not a God of confusion. I did go through very difficult times. I thank God that He turned everything for good. I would never have gotten to know God as I do without those hardships. If that was the only way I could get to know God, I would do it again in a heartbeat. The promises in God’s Word was what I clung to. Reminded God in prayer. I will never leave you nor forsake you. I can do all things in Christ Jesus who loves me and gave Himself for me. God is my provider. Never have I seen the righteous forsaken and begging bread. And so many more. God’s Word is powerful. It doesn’t return to Him void, but it accomplishes what He sent it to do. When Jesus was in the dessert 40 days, He used scripture to rebuke Satan when he tried to tempt Him. How much more do we need to know and depend on God’s Word to overcome temptation and difficulties.

During those years in Tasmania God helped me so often, I could write a book.

Have you heard Ravi Zacharius? He is an apologist. I listen to him on CUB Christian United Broadcasting. He has some very good discussions/debates with atheists, evolutionists and messages for Christians.

Thank you for your kind words.
Carmen
 
Hans_W said:
It’s called Cognitive Dissonance. That’s when you are confronted by new information that conflicts with your existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

One way of getting rid of cognitive dissonance is to ignore new incoming information.
Click to expand...
Why are you both arguing about these worldly matters? Cognitive dissonance etc etc. How does this bring anyone to Christ? How does this edify anyone? I have no idea what cognitive dissonance is. Unless you can qualify this by showing me what God says about it; it is puffed up and of no value.

Mark 7:13 “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down”. God doesn’t want us to get sidetracked by worldly arguments. The charge we have been given by Christ is to spread the gospel and make disciples.

Hebrews 4:12 “For the Word of God is LIVING and POWERFUL, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account”

There is a noticeable reliance on what men have said but precious little on what God says.

What is it about God and His message that can answer this question about Adam and Eve? If an unbeliever read your response would it move him towards God or away? Your words are not able to convict and cut the heart like a sword as God’s Word can, as described in Hebrews 4:12
Carmen
 
AyJSimon said:
Here’s something I’ve wondered about. Lots of Catholics claim not to be literalists, particularly w/r/t the story of Creation in Genesis. Yet, it feels like many of these same Catholics have no problem talking about Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the “Fall of Man” as though these were actual people, places, and events.

It’s the “fall of man” bit that I find problematic here. If the events depicted in Genesis didn’t literally happen, what was “the fall of man,” exactly? Are we really talking about two people who once lived uncorrupted by sin, but someone did something to bring the concept of Original Sin into the world?
Click to expand...
Very good post. Since the Christian God supposedly created with infallible foreknowledge and pre-ordained all future events (see the Catholic Encyclopedia) , then he willed the version of creation that we see. If so, he willed the fall of man and everything else that has followed.
To the OP, of course their had to be two original human beings. These would be the simians who first attained true consciousness. Along with that consciousness cane the ability to think and act freely. No divine intervention needed.
 
carmenp1 said:
I am so used to going to my bible for references, I have no idea what this means.
What is he saying? I can understand my bible but this is very confusing.
Carmen
Click to expand...
You are right. They use words which, rather than make things clear, they make things more confusing. They think it shows how intelligent they are. 😛
 
carmenp1 said:
There is a noticeable reliance on what men have said but precious little on what God says.
Click to expand...
If your believe that Genesis is literally true and is literally what God said, then how do you explain that in Genesis 1:24-26, it says that God created the animals and then he created humans, but in Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19 it says that God created humans and then He created the animals? In which order did God create man and the animals? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can’t both be literally true and historically accurate.

Genesis 1:24-26
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind[c] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19:
7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,** and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being…15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. …18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.**
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
If your believe that Genesis is literally true and is literally what God said, then how do you explain that in Genesis 1:24-26, it says that God created the animals and then he created humans, but in Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19 it says that God created humans and then He created the animals? In which order did God create man and the animals? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can’t both be literally true and historically accurate.

Genesis 1:24-26

Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19:
Click to expand...
My Bible says in Genesis 2:19 “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…” etc.
“Had formed” means to me …previously formed them in Genesis 1!

No problem here. 🤷
 
oldcelt said:
Very good post. Since the Christian God supposedly created with infallible foreknowledge and pre-ordained all future events (see the Catholic Encyclopedia) , then he willed the version of creation that we see. If so, he willed the fall of man and everything else that has followed.
Click to expand...
This is in fact the unavoidable question. The usual escape route from this point is “free will” however, anything omniscient would know the odds of the outcomes pretty well, and an unflawed designer could hardly produce something that malfunctions or produces an undesired result.

All the best,
Gary
 
truetofaith said:
My Bible says in Genesis 2:19 “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…” etc.
“Had formed” means to me …previously formed them in Genesis 1!

No problem here. 🤷
Click to expand...
But Genesis 2:18 says, “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’” This indicates that God specifically made the animals after he had made man because He did not want man to be alone. It doesn’t say, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I have already made him a helper as his partner.” It says, “I will make him a helper as his partner.”
 
Thorolfr said:
If your believe that Genesis is literally true and is literally what God said, then how do you explain that in Genesis 1:24-26, it says that God created the animals and then he created humans, but in Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19 it says that God created humans and then He created the animals? In which order did God create man and the animals? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can’t both be literally true and historically accurate.

Genesis 1:24-26

Genesis 2:7, 15, 18-19:
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:19 “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was it’s name.” This passage describes again how God created all the beasts, birds etc. but the subject He leads us to is that God brought them to Adam to name them.

The fact that Adam was intelligent enough to be able to come up with all these names is pretty awesome. I don’t think I would be able to do that. What a huge undertaking! It’s better to take God at His word so you don’t get bogged down with “did God really literally start with Adam from scratch?” Where Adam and Eve real? If God started from scratch with the animals I think He could have done the same with Adam.

What we miss are the gems right in front of us that God is trying to show us. Is God not omnipresent, all powerful, is anything too hard for God. For us, definitely. We find it too hard sometimes to just believe God is telling it to us as He did it.
Carmen
 
Gary_Sheldrake said:
This is in fact the unavoidable question. The usual escape route from this point is “free will” however, anything omniscient would know the odds of the outcomes pretty well, and an unflawed designer could hardly produce something that malfunctions or produces an undesired result.

All the best,
Gary
Click to expand...
God knew exactly how Adam and Eve would pan out. So why did He still go ahead knowing they would sin and it would lead to the fall and subsequently, His salvation through Jesus Christ? How would you know if someone loved you? I guess, again He would know who loved Him before they were born.

I don’t think we can really come up with the perfect answer. It comes down to trust in God. Knowing our limitations and living in the fear of God because that is the beginning of wisdom.
Carmen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top