T
tjones80
Guest
I’m of the opinion that the story is a metaphor and/or allegory. What do you think?
- Status
B
bsroufek
Guest
I believe the Creation story in Genesis to be literally true as it is written, including God’s creation of Adam from the dust (not from lower life forms) and Eve from Adam’s rib.
Even the Church, which in recent times has begun to call the Creation story an allegory–ie. not to be taken as literally true–insists on the idea that we had two original parents (man/woman) created by God with souls.
Even the Church, which in recent times has begun to call the Creation story an allegory–ie. not to be taken as literally true–insists on the idea that we had two original parents (man/woman) created by God with souls.
F
followingtheway
Guest
I’m on that boat as well, but I struggle with one question, “If Adam and Eve never existed. Where did original sin come from and what Jesus die for?”
What is your take on this?
D
Della
Guest
Why doubt it merely because the origins of the human race are related in a very popular form for the time, in which they were written down–mythology. As I have explained in such threads, mythology is a form of writing about persons and events that may be real or may be fanciful. The form of writing itself tells us nothing about the reality of the story. In this case, the story is real but told in mythological language.
Having said that, yes, I believe in two real people whom God created and set in the Garden of Eden. Why do I believe it? Because Our Lord taught it, the Church he established teaches it, and it makes the most sense theologically.
What creatures may have existed before them of the same general family as man has no bearing on the special creation of man, made in the image of God. Science cannot tell us everything about our origins–there isn’t enough evidence for that. Therefore, some scientists have filled in the “holes” with hypothesis that, at the present time, cannot be proved true or false with the available data and methods of investigation.
Having said that, yes, I believe in two real people whom God created and set in the Garden of Eden. Why do I believe it? Because Our Lord taught it, the Church he established teaches it, and it makes the most sense theologically.
What creatures may have existed before them of the same general family as man has no bearing on the special creation of man, made in the image of God. Science cannot tell us everything about our origins–there isn’t enough evidence for that. Therefore, some scientists have filled in the “holes” with hypothesis that, at the present time, cannot be proved true or false with the available data and methods of investigation.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
SOMEHOW: Yes.
I believe in Evolution, though I don’t like being tagged as an “Evolutionist,” so I believe that
our modern human species evolved from earlier forms of hominid. Despite this, however, I
feel like Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain, Enoch to Noah, SOMEHOW existed for real.
In what manner? I can’t say, but I don’t take Genesis 1-11 as 100% literal, as I believe the
stories of Creation, Fall, Flood, Tower, etc. are kind of a primordial history, sort of a synop-
sis of the Beginning of everything, that the point isn’t HOW it all happened, but WHY.
Was the first sin really just eating a fruit? Is that the point? Or is God just say-
ing, “Your earliest parents sinned against me, now all of you are tainted in sin”?
Somehow, just somehow, yes I believe in Adam and Eve, but what-
ever God is trying to say to us, as for me, *Message Received! *
(I do actually have
.a really nice icon.
of our Mother Eve)
I believe in Evolution, though I don’t like being tagged as an “Evolutionist,” so I believe that
our modern human species evolved from earlier forms of hominid. Despite this, however, I
feel like Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain, Enoch to Noah, SOMEHOW existed for real.
In what manner? I can’t say, but I don’t take Genesis 1-11 as 100% literal, as I believe the
stories of Creation, Fall, Flood, Tower, etc. are kind of a primordial history, sort of a synop-
sis of the Beginning of everything, that the point isn’t HOW it all happened, but WHY.
Was the first sin really just eating a fruit? Is that the point? Or is God just say-
ing, “Your earliest parents sinned against me, now all of you are tainted in sin”?
Somehow, just somehow, yes I believe in Adam and Eve, but what-
ever God is trying to say to us, as for me, *Message Received! *
And I hate the Modern Creationist
Movement that pretends to use
science to prove Genesis.
Movement that pretends to use
science to prove Genesis.
(I do actually have
.a really nice icon.
of our Mother Eve)
T
tjones80
Guest
I think the story of eating the forbidden fruit is that mankind will always ignore God’s commandments and do as he pleases. It takes God’s commandments to help mankind live a productive life that won’t harm others.
C
catholictiger
Guest
I believe that its both 1 and 2
This is why 1 The Council of Trent requires that all Catholics believe that Adam is the single father of the entire human race (ensouled human race)
also in humani generis
How can this agree with the current churches movement to embrase evolution fuller.
see this article
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html
But to give a brief summary. Original sin can be in agreement with modern biology by arguing that God ensouled Adam and Eve from among a group of Homo Sapiens. Then when their children would mate with other homo sapiens the offspring even if it was between an ensouled homo sapien and non ensouled homo sapien the offspring would have a soul. This guy argues that given time (and there hundreds if not thousands of years for this to happen) the homo sapiens who didn’t have souls would die out and because of evolutional advantage a souled individual would have versus one without a soul the souled individuals would win out. This allows all human beings to be decedents of Adam and Eve and original sin to be passed on to ALL individuals.
This is why 1 The Council of Trent requires that all Catholics believe that Adam is the single father of the entire human race (ensouled human race)
also in humani generis
To my knowledge there is NOTHING that develops this doctrine to a point where we can accpet polygenism. We as catholics must accept monogenism.
How can this agree with the current churches movement to embrase evolution fuller.
see this article
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html
But to give a brief summary. Original sin can be in agreement with modern biology by arguing that God ensouled Adam and Eve from among a group of Homo Sapiens. Then when their children would mate with other homo sapiens the offspring even if it was between an ensouled homo sapien and non ensouled homo sapien the offspring would have a soul. This guy argues that given time (and there hundreds if not thousands of years for this to happen) the homo sapiens who didn’t have souls would die out and because of evolutional advantage a souled individual would have versus one without a soul the souled individuals would win out. This allows all human beings to be decedents of Adam and Eve and original sin to be passed on to ALL individuals.
C
catholictiger
Guest
a note to all please don’t discuss evolution if it is correct or not. Please focus on the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and if we all descended from Adam and Eve or not.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Not really. The Ten Commandments hep those who believe that they come from God. There are many productive who don’t harm others that do not believe Christ is the Savior. The Buddhist come to mind, as well as others.
D
dshix
Guest
I did not answer the poll, because it is not the same question as the thread title, and thus it does not have proper options.
Yes, Adam and Eve existed. That is taught, in doctrine, by the Church.
The Church does NOT, however, teach exactly how they came to be, or exactly how creation was done, or anything about that. We have Genesis, but the Church hasn’t said whether it is to be taken literally or symbolically.
Evolution is possible. Creationism is possible. The Church has not defined any doctrine concerning each.
I have my personal opinions on what I think is more likely, but those are somewhat irrelevant to the thread.
Yes, Adam and Eve existed. That is taught, in doctrine, by the Church.
The Church does NOT, however, teach exactly how they came to be, or exactly how creation was done, or anything about that. We have Genesis, but the Church hasn’t said whether it is to be taken literally or symbolically.
Evolution is possible. Creationism is possible. The Church has not defined any doctrine concerning each.
I have my personal opinions on what I think is more likely, but those are somewhat irrelevant to the thread.
D
dshix
Guest
Exactly.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I believe in Evolution and that God creates an ordered universe that is really old and he works through natural processes.
At some point God decided to “breathe” life into man which changed us forever to be truly in his image.
At that moment, when he either took a primordial animal like man and woman, his creation, and made it very good, or if he made two very unique humanoids at one point, Then those two are Adam and Eve, our first parents.
Taking a strict evolutionary standpoint eliminates the uniqueness of man, the soul, the idea of original sin, and much more.
One must at least believe that God did something unique to set the human race apart in “Adam and Eve”
At some point God decided to “breathe” life into man which changed us forever to be truly in his image.
At that moment, when he either took a primordial animal like man and woman, his creation, and made it very good, or if he made two very unique humanoids at one point, Then those two are Adam and Eve, our first parents.
Taking a strict evolutionary standpoint eliminates the uniqueness of man, the soul, the idea of original sin, and much more.
One must at least believe that God did something unique to set the human race apart in “Adam and Eve”
P
PJM
Guest
my FRIEND you did not give IMO, sufficient options.
There NAMES may NOT have been “Adam and Eve” but the CHURCH TEACHES and I believe it is nevertheless a true account.
Our Catechism:
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
**359 **“In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”
Humanites origins HAD to come trhough God’s CREATION. So why NOT as the church teaches. Because “man” is BOTH a physical and a “spiritual” things, and “like can only come from like”; evolution of man is a logical, moral and theological impossibility.
S
StraitGateSheep
Guest
Hello all,
I believe the account because
it was repeated by Christ, (the incarnated Mighty God of Israel),
and also by the Remnant of Israel (= anointed Apostles),
who are fearless and who do not lie.
Matt.19
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him (Jesus their God),
tempting him, and saying unto him,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] and he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that **he who made them at the beginning,
made them male and female, (= a pair)
** Jesus was referring to himself.
Knowing the FULL identity of Jesus really helps and increases Faith in him.
He came as poor and weak BUT the opposite is true.
Good wishes to you.
I believe the account because
it was repeated by Christ, (the incarnated Mighty God of Israel),
and also by the Remnant of Israel (= anointed Apostles),
who are fearless and who do not lie.
Matt.19
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him (Jesus their God),
tempting him, and saying unto him,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] and he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that **he who made them at the beginning,
made them male and female, (= a pair)
** Jesus was referring to himself.
Knowing the FULL identity of Jesus really helps and increases Faith in him.
He came as poor and weak BUT the opposite is true.
Good wishes to you.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I believe that Adam and Eve is an analogy for the male and female elements of the bicameral brain.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
- Status