Father Robert Barron said that Adam was a figurative figure not a literal one? Help!

[FishyPete]

Okay. This topic of original sin is one I have struggled with myself. So I’ll just grab a bag of popcorn and sit over here quietlyopcorn:

I meant no offense. I’m just really frustrated because I respect the man, and I can’t find any info regarding his stance on original sin tied to original parents (not necessarily the “Adam” naming the animals in Genesis)

Should I care what he thinks? Probably not, but his Catholicism series was so good, I don;t want to think he is out of line with the church on this. Which I have no evidence of, but hey, that’s why im asking for information. that’s it.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I meant no offense. I’m just really frustrated because I respect the man, and I can’t find any info regarding his stance on original sin tied to original parents (not necessarily the “Adam” naming the animals in Genesis)

Should I care what he thinks? Probably not, but his Catholicism series was so good, I don;t want to think he is out of line with the church on this. Which I have no evidence of, but hey, that’s why im asking for information. that’s it.

There is a lot about the Faith I’m frustrated about,that I know little or nothing about, and because I don’t know, my warped sense of humor raises it’s ugly head:blush: I’m sorry!

 

[FishyPete]

There is a lot about the Faith I’m frustrated about,that I know little or nothing about, and because I don’t know, my warped sense of humor raises it’s ugly head:blush: I’m sorry!

No problem, but i’m not frustrated with this topic, only Father Barron’s words which have left me scratching my head.

So my question for Father Barron, which he has not answered:

Father, I understand that Adam and Eve were literary figures, but my question is what is your stand on original sin and how we inherited it? The Catholic Church states, and I have been taught that we come from one man and one woman, and that we inherited original sin from that one man and woman, regardless of whether or not they were called “Adam”, or “Eve”. What is you stance on this, irrespective of Genesis, given that you have stated that original sin is like a sickness we inherit (I believe it was in a blog post). I love your work, but this has troubled me, and I can’t find a definite answer from you anywhere?

Now I have scoured the internet (because I respect the man, and enjoy his work) trying in vain to find even a scrap of information regarding his stand on our FIRST TWO PARENTS, outside of Genesis, which I understand points to the primordial event.

I hope someone here can point me to some online spot where he talks about his understanding of our first two parents.

 

[Aloysium]

No problem, but i’m not frustrated with this topic, only Father Barron’s words which have left me scratching my head. . . …

I can’t speak for him but it seems that if one is interested in evangelization, the focus should not be on what separates you. If the supernatural cause of our creation will not be understood by the other party, why address it, when what is truly important is the sharing of its significance, its meaning, which he does do
In the context of his other videos, it no longer concerns me. I am happy in fact that this offered me an opportunity to review, reaffirm and grow in my faith.

 

[FishyPete]

I can’t speak for him but it seems that if one is interested in evangelization, the focus should not be on what separates you. If the supernatural cause of our creation will not be understood by the other party, why address it, when what is truly important is the sharing of its significance, its meaning, which he does do
In the context of his other videos, it no longer concerns me. I am happy in fact that this offered me an opportunity to review, reaffirm and grow in my faith.

I have to tell you something, your post has been one of the most insightful things I have read in a long long time (on the internet.) wow, what insight. Thanks!

You make quite a fantastic point.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Ok, so I really respect Father Robert Baron, but I came across this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
at the 6 minute mark
And to say I was shocked was an understatement.
Can anyone provide some insight here? Doesn’t this fly in the face of original sin? I am sooooooo confused.

Genesis is ALL TRUTH, but that’s NOT the same as ALL FACT.

If God first created Man around Mesopotamia, why do we find the first humans in Africa?

You’re missing the point of Genesis!

Were Adam & Eve literal people or not? WE DON’T KNOW! but that is
not the point that Genesis is making, so Creationists need to wake up.

SOMEHOW the Stories in Genesis are TRUE, but we can’t fix it up as literal history. No
evidence confirms the 6-Day Creation, World Flood, or Adam&Eve story at all, and if any
Creationist Organization or “scholar” tries to show what he/she ‘calls’ “evidence,” do not
believe that person, because they started their research by reading the Bible THEN they
try to fit things into their research thinking, “How do I make it look like it works?”

AGAIN ! :
Don’t miss the point of Genesis, either it is factual or it is not, but either way that’s
not the point God has been making this whole time! God Made, We Sinned, God
Saves, science doesn’t take those Truths away, try as many Creationists (maybe
not all) might to make it look otherwise.

Genesis is trying to make a point, a very simple one, don’t complicate it.

Here’s a helpful quote from a good Catholic:
“The Bible shows the way
to go to Heaven, not the
way the heavens go.”
― Galileo Galilei

 

[FishyPete]

Genesis is ALL TRUTH, but that’s NOT the same as ALL FACT.

If God first created Man around Mesopotamia, why do we find the first humans in Africa?

You’re missing the point of Genesis!

Were Adam & Eve literal people or not? WE DON’T KNOW! but that is
not the point that Genesis is making, so Creationists need to wake up.

SOMEHOW the Stories in Genesis are TRUE, but we can’t fix it up as literal history. No
evidence confirms the 6-Day Creation, World Flood, or Adam&Eve story at all, and if any
Creationist Organization or “scholar” tries to show what he/she ‘calls’ “evidence,” do not
believe that person, because they started their research by reading the Bible THEN they
try to fit things into their research thinking, “How do I make it look like it works?”

AGAIN ! :
Don’t miss the point of Genesis, either it is factual or it is not, but either way that’s not
the point God has been making this whole time! God Made, We Sinned, God Saves,
science doesn’t take those Truths away, try as Creationists might to make it look
otherwise.

Genesis is trying to make a point, a very simple one, don’t complicate it.

Here’s a helpful quote from a good Catholic:
“The Bible shows the way
to go to Heaven, not the
way the heavens go.”
― Galileo Galilei

Excellent points, thank you.

 

[dskysmine]

Hey,
I couldn’t read all the posts, but I would just like to say that I believe most people are reading incorrectly Fr. Barron’s words. He mentions that in Genesis there are numerous theological truths, when he made the point about Adam, he wasn’t talking about Adam’s existence, he was talking about the naming of the animals and the trees… he meant that it isn’t literally truth (or a theological truth) that Adam gives the name to everything, but that it is “Man”(and Woman) that catalogs everything. If he didn’t say that Adam was not literal, he said that it wasn’t the literal Adam that did the cataloging… just that.

God bless,
D.

 

[FishyPete]

Actually, Father Barron said this:

Adam is a literary figure gesturing toward the truth of what obtained “in the beginning.” He is not to be read as a straightforward historical figure like Caesar or Abraham Lincoln.

But I think your point still stands.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Actually, Father Barron said this:

Adam is a literary figure gesturing toward the truth of what obtained “in the beginning.” He is not to be read as a straightforward historical figure like Caesar or Abraham Lincoln.

But I think your point still stands.

I guess I was a Fundamentalist too long! By the way Who put the “FUN” in Fundamentalism?

 

[Ion]

I don’t see the link, though I would be interested in reading your source.

The vast majority of biologists would disagree with the opinion that a single adam and a single eve could be identified, if by that you mean homo sapiens (people just like us). The closest thing to that, based on the genetic evidence, would place the two individuals so far apart chronologically that they could never have met each other.

At least have patience and WAIT until “the vast majority of biologists” say that their theories are eternal truth to which nothing can be added or modified!!! Until then is only kind of opinion.

Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans created by God. That’s the fact, but you can think of it in symbolic or metaphoric mode also; like the parables for example, they reflect potential facts even though you do not know when and where or even if they really happened; but the parables point first to the symbolic. I think that Genesis points first to the facts but the facts can also bear a symbolic meaning.

 

[Bobby_Ray]

Are we required to believe that Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall of Man? It doesn’t make too much sense to me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m suprised at some of the responses made here. It is absolutely clear that the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that Adam and Eve were real historical people, our first parents, that they were indeed created in a state of innocence and in the state of grace and that they were destained to live forever ( they were not to experience death ), and that they sinned and lost the state of innocence and passed on original sin to their descendents.

Please read the following linik : . whynotcatholicism.net/view/ad…ginal-sin-true

The link is copyrighted so I couldn’t include it in the post. But please go read it. At least read your Catechism.

r. Barron did say that Adam was not a literal historical figure. Perhaps he meant that we don’t really know what his name was but that there was a real first man and woman created by God and that Moses called them Adam ( man ) and Eve ( woman ) for want of actual knowledge of their names. He is clearly wrong if he is saying there was no first man and first woman created by God… How he could have said what some are thinking he meant is a mystery. I don’t know how much prep time he gives to these videos but he clearly should have given more time on this one. I think he just slipped up.

Linus2nd

 

[Contarini]

No problem, but i’m not frustrated with this topic, only Father Barron’s words which have left me scratching my head.

So my question for Father Barron, which he has not answered:

Father, I understand that Adam and Eve were literary figures, but my question is what is your stand on original sin and how we inherited it? The Catholic Church states, and I have been taught that we come from one man and one woman, and that we inherited original sin from that one man and woman, regardless of whether or not they were called “Adam”, or “Eve”. What is you stance on this, irrespective of Genesis, given that you have stated that original sin is like a sickness we inherit (I believe it was in a blog post). I love your work, but this has troubled me, and I can’t find a definite answer from you anywhere?

Now I have scoured the internet (because I respect the man, and enjoy his work) trying in vain to find even a scrap of information regarding his stand on our FIRST TWO PARENTS, outside of Genesis, which I understand points to the primordial event.

I hope someone here can point me to some online spot where he talks about his understanding of our first two parents.

He certainly doesn’t deny original sin. In one quote from him I saw recently (and I’m sorry, I am not sure where it was or how to find it) he seemed to be saying that original sin is a description of the way we are and is not the result of some event that happened in time. It would appear that he may agree with Karl Barth on this point. Barth thought that unfallen creation is humanity as we are in Jesus. It isn’t something that literally existed at some historical point in the past. (There’s a possibly apocryphal story that the conservative apologist Francis Schaeffer asked Barth, “When do you think the world was created,” and Barth responded, “Two thousand years ago.”) Given Fr. Barron’s very Christocentric theology, I can see how he might agree with Barth on this point. But like you, I’d like to see some clearer statements from him.

My problem with Barth’s view is that original sin is no longer “our fault” in quite the way it is in the traditional view. Even if you say that God didn’t create us with original sin, because God creates humanity in Jesus, you still have people sinning for thousands of years before Jesus without having been given any chance to do otherwise . I suppose the response would be that since Jesus’ death works backwards as well as forwards, people living before Jesus did have access to God’s grace, and when they sinned they were rejecting that. But there are certainly difficulties with this position–and I don’t know if this is how Fr. Barron would put things anyway. (It’s just consistent with what seems to be his general theological approach.)

This is a difficult issue, and one on which further doctrinal development clearly needs to take place. Whether that will consist of endorsing or rejecting Fr. Barron’s position, it seems to me, remains to be seen.

Edwin

 

[FishyPete]

He certainly doesn’t deny original sin. In one quote from him I saw recently (and I’m sorry, I am not sure where it was or how to find it) he seemed to be saying that original sin is a description of the way we are and is not the result of some event that happened in time. It would appear that he may agree with Karl Barth on this point. Barth thought that unfallen creation is humanity as we are in Jesus. It isn’t something that literally existed at some historical point in the past. (There’s a possibly apocryphal story that the conservative apologist Francis Schaeffer asked Barth, “When do you think the world was created,” and Barth responded, “Two thousand years ago.”) Given Fr. Barron’s very Christocentric theology, I can see how he might agree with Barth on this point. But like you, I’d like to see some clearer statements from him.

My problem with Barth’s view is that original sin is no longer “our fault” in quite the way it is in the traditional view. Even if you say that God didn’t create us with original sin, because God creates humanity in Jesus, you still have people sinning for thousands of years before Jesus without having been given any chance to do otherwise . I suppose the response would be that since Jesus’ death works backwards as well as forwards, people living before Jesus did have access to God’s grace, and when they sinned they were rejecting that. But there are certainly difficulties with this position–and I don’t know if this is how Fr. Barron would put things anyway. (It’s just consistent with what seems to be his general theological approach.)

This is a difficult issue, and one on which further doctrinal development clearly needs to take place. Whether that will consist of endorsing or rejecting Fr. Barron’s position, it seems to me, remains to be seen.

Edwin

If you have the link to the quote then post it, otherwise, what you are saying is invalid.

However if Fr. Barron believes such nonsense, then he truly is a danger to the church.

I hope you are able to track down this quote, this is a serious allegation.

 

[epan]

An allegory doesn’t rule out original sin at all. It is not scientific but it is historical! It seems highly unlikely that several human couples grasped simultaneously the difference between good and evil. Moral insight is clear evidence of the fundamental difference between persons and animals. Nor is it a distinction that can emerge gradually. We either realise something is right or wrong or we don’t. There are no half-measures when it comes to the possession of a conscience.

I am curious how you would explain how some animals, such as bonobos, do act as though they have a conscience, while others, such as chimps, appear not to have one? Do you think that such complex behavior is “all, or nothing?” One of the challenges with your assertion is that we are limited in what we can figure out as far as cognition goes, other than inferring what we may from observing behavior.

 

[FishyPete]

He certainly doesn’t deny original sin. In one quote from him I saw recently (and I’m sorry, I am not sure where it was or how to find it) he seemed to be saying that original sin is a description of the way we are and is not the result of some event that happened in time. It would appear that he may agree with Karl Barth on this point. Barth thought that unfallen creation is humanity as we are in Jesus. It isn’t something that literally existed at some historical point in the past. (There’s a possibly apocryphal story that the conservative apologist Francis Schaeffer asked Barth, “When do you think the world was created,” and Barth responded, “Two thousand years ago.”) Given Fr. Barron’s very Christocentric theology, I can see how he might agree with Barth on this point. But like you, I’d like to see some clearer statements from him.

My problem with Barth’s view is that original sin is no longer “our fault” in quite the way it is in the traditional view. Even if you say that God didn’t create us with original sin, because God creates humanity in Jesus, you still have people sinning for thousands of years before Jesus without having been given any chance to do otherwise . I suppose the response would be that since Jesus’ death works backwards as well as forwards, people living before Jesus did have access to God’s grace, and when they sinned they were rejecting that. But there are certainly difficulties with this position–and I don’t know if this is how Fr. Barron would put things anyway. (It’s just consistent with what seems to be his general theological approach.)

This is a difficult issue, and one on which further doctrinal development clearly needs to take place. Whether that will consist of endorsing or rejecting Fr. Barron’s position, it seems to me, remains to be seen.

Edwin

Infact, what you are insinuating is that Father Robert Barron is completely at odds with the Catholic Church - these are heavy heavy alligations you make without proof, no?

 

[FishyPete]

He certainly doesn’t deny original sin. In one quote from him I saw recently (and I’m sorry, I am not sure where it was or how to find it) he seemed to be saying that original sin is a description of the way we are and is not the result of some event that happened in time. It would appear that he may agree with Karl Barth on this point. Barth thought that unfallen creation is humanity as we are in Jesus. It isn’t something that literally existed at some historical point in the past. (There’s a possibly apocryphal story that the conservative apologist Francis Schaeffer asked Barth, “When do you think the world was created,” and Barth responded, “Two thousand years ago.”) Given Fr. Barron’s very Christocentric theology, I can see how he might agree with Barth on this point. But like you, I’d like to see some clearer statements from him.

My problem with Barth’s view is that original sin is no longer “our fault” in quite the way it is in the traditional view. Even if you say that God didn’t create us with original sin, because God creates humanity in Jesus, you still have people sinning for thousands of years before Jesus without having been given any chance to do otherwise . I suppose the response would be that since Jesus’ death works backwards as well as forwards, people living before Jesus did have access to God’s grace, and when they sinned they were rejecting that. But there are certainly difficulties with this position–and I don’t know if this is how Fr. Barron would put things anyway. (It’s just consistent with what seems to be his general theological approach.)

This is a difficult issue, and one on which further doctrinal development clearly needs to take place. Whether that will consist of endorsing or rejecting Fr. Barron’s position, it seems to me, remains to be seen.

Edwin

One other thing, if what you say is true, than Father Barron is out of step with the Mother Church and is teachin false things to the Priests he’s teaching and the world in his DVDs. This is heavy heavy stuff.

 

[Aloysium]

I am curious how you would explain how some animals, such as bonobos, do act as though they have a conscience, while others, such as chimps, appear not to have one? Do you think that such complex behavior is “all, or nothing?” One of the challenges with your assertion is that we are limited in what we can figure out as far as cognition goes, other than inferring what we may from observing behavior.

Animals have emotions. Saying they would have a conscience is anthropomorphising. Animals cannot commit the horrors we do. They can be psychologically damaged and behave erratically, but these are disturbed instincts, not evil.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Are we required to believe that Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall of Man? It doesn’t make too much sense to me.

They COULD have been, they could have been, whether Adam and Eve were literal
individuals or not, there COULD have been a point when the “First Official Humans”
were perfect, immortal, and in communion with God, though that state might have
been very short lived.