N
NM505StKate
Guest
Wait, why didn’t Yahweh create man without a decomposing body? What do you mean “different in kind”?
Let me ask this. If there is no literal Adam and Eve, Genesis is allegorical, what was the “fall of man”?
- Status
Let me ask this. If there is no literal Adam and Eve, Genesis is allegorical, what was the “fall of man”?
P
pianistclare
Guest
The tendency for mankind to sin.
Selfishness. 'Greed.
All the things that lead us from God.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I. WHERE SIN ABOUNDED, GRACE ABOUNDED ALL THE MORE
The reality of sin
386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.
387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.
Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
I believe this states that the revelation of God of Himself to man coincides with original sin that follows.
Paragraph 390 reiterates the allegorical nature of Genesis. The Catechism does not take an allegory and put literal meaning to it in the Catechism on purpose. If the Church is behind on the science, so be it. I don’t believe there is enough evidence to suggest it is, yet. Genesis also says the earth is the center of the solar system and that it’s flat.
The Church has had to adjust in the past and will do so again. This is in keeping with the nature of the Church. It’s a living Church not an arbitrary set of beliefs that cannot be changed to reflect reality as it is discovered. The problem lies in interpreting scripture and science. You’ll notice the Catechism is very cautious when dealing with things like this, it has to be. It won’t step on the toes of scientific discovery to make assumptions about God.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
That doesn’t answer the question. I assume you are defining sin as the Judeo-Christian concept. Thing is cultures from around the world have established laws and morals. Seeing how they are based on social contracts as well as the need to progress many biological necessity brought about the laws.
D
davidv
Guest
From all I have read and hear God has not chosen to reveal his reason for creating us as we are.
A different category. Like the difference between a rock and a plant.
Based on Catholic teaching, one goes with the other. This why I, and based on prior threads, and grannymh, believe that the attack on the reality of Adam and Eve is a veiled attack on the Church.
C
cfauster
Guest
For a Catholic biologist who defends Adam and Eve and the doctrine of original sin, with Adam and Eve as the first behaviorally (and spiritually) modern humans yet coexisting with thousands of anatomically modern humans, I recommend Fr. Nicanor Austriaco.
More about him is on CAF’s website.
G
grannymh
Guest
From post 21.
“The CCC puts forth it’s theology in harmony with the allegorical nature of Genesis. ‘First man’ is not literal. The CCC clearly states that the advent of the belief in our one God coincidences with original sin. There is no time or place or number assigned to that event.”
The Catholic Church teaches that the Original Sin is a one-time event “at the beginning of the history of man.” (CCC 390, italics in text) It is “committed at mankind’s origins.” (CCC 387) Please notice that the “reality of sin” is present in human history;” (CCC 386). Certainly a sin that we living humans “are tempted to explain as merely a developmental flaw … “ (CCC 387) is not the same historical sin committed by first person on planet earth. The name of the first mortal sin is called Original Sin because the original (first) man committed it. There cannot be additional original humans in “ present human history.” (CCC 386) As CCC 388 points out, the “People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand” the reality of sin in their current “ human condition …” The nature of the only Original Sin (Genesis 2: 15-17) and Adam’s execution of the Original Sin (Genesis 3:11) only occurs when Adam was living. “After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin.” (CCC 401)
The above CCC paragraphs are about reality of current sin. Thus, they cannot be used as an explanation for the advent of belief connected with the affirmation (truth) of “a primeval event.” (CCC 390) Unfortunately, the use of the words “emergence” or “advent of belief” can signify the material development of the rational soul as non-humans were humanized.
R
rossum
Guest
No. YHWH created something (which was not the first life) from nothing + YHWH. Remember that YHWH was there as well as the nothing.
rossum
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t have anything to offer a person who has become convinced that science precludes this or that in the bible.
However, the older I get and the more I study, it is inescapable to me that there is a great deal more we don’t know than we do. Once, scientists not only didn’t believe black holes existed, they believed (and proved mathematically to their satisfaction) that they couldn’t exist.
And yet now, the agreement is that they do, and some believe they have proved it mathematically and by observation of the action of nearby celestial bodies. And maybe they have.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity was widely discounted until he managed to show that light really did bend around large bodies, thus that space bent because light itself doesn’t bend. So what is space, then, that it can bend? Is it a “something” or is it, (as all once believed) a “nothing”? We don’t know, and scientists admit we dont’ know.
Nobody has yet been able to find a consistent way to explain general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the theories (and findings) seem to contradict. But someday, someone will figure out something to show that they somehow both fit into a consistent overarching theory.
So what’s the story on Adam and Eve? We don’t know. But just because we don’t know and just because the current knowledge of genetics seems to preclude just two progenitors, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true.
One thing that has fascinated me is how, when I was very young, a great deal of the Biblical accounts of this or that were discounted as myths; perhaps respectable myths but myths just the same. But then, some of the recent “discoveries” in astrophysics seem to make more and more of the Genesis story entirely credible. That’s to say nothing of some of the lesser events, like the “Pillar of fire” (was it really Thera?) or the parting of the Red Sea (was it perhaps wind shutdown?). On and on. Was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps the explosion of a comet?
And more, were things like Thera and a comet planted into the mechanics of the cosmos by God from the very beginning? If He’s really God, he could do things like that; set natural forces in motion from the very beginning of the Big Bang, for instance, that would have exactly the right event at exactly the right time to have exactly the right result, and all in a “purely” natural way. We should not expect God to be hasty in His actions.
If, say, the genes of a fruit fly can be changed with a dentist’s x-ray, once and for sure, and without necessitating changing a thousand fruit flies, who is to say some force could not be brought to bear that would change them in a human being; an altogether new change, and one that is presently unknown. If Monsanto can alter the DNA of corn to make it resist a chemical that would kill all other corn, would not allow the corn to reproduce naturally or even spread its DNA, why would we assume God couldn’t do something much more astonishing?
And if God could set Thera up for an eruption of exactly the right kind at exactly the right moment, in exactly the right place from the very dawn of time, is there any really good reason to believe Him unable to set things in motion in the molecules and genes of His living creatures sufficient to produce exactly the right thing at exactly the right time to suit His purposes, the same being the production of two entirely unique creatures who nonetheless would contain all the DNA (or precursors thereof) to produce a very diverse population all by themselves?
If He’s God, He certainly could do those things. The only remaining questions are whether, in fact, He did, and why. But our own present understanding of how things work on a very small scale and with severely limited knowledge resources, does not preclude His having a better understanding on a scale so huge we may never be able to grasp it.
I very much doubt I’ll ever know the reality of the Adam and Eve story on this side of Jordan. But I’m not troubled by it, as I expect it to be revealed to me by and by; that and a lot of other things besides. If we truly are destined for the Beatific Vision, we’re going to learn a lot, and we’ll never stop drinking from that inexhaustible font. That I don’t know it all now, does not trouble me. Nor should it.
However, the older I get and the more I study, it is inescapable to me that there is a great deal more we don’t know than we do. Once, scientists not only didn’t believe black holes existed, they believed (and proved mathematically to their satisfaction) that they couldn’t exist.
And yet now, the agreement is that they do, and some believe they have proved it mathematically and by observation of the action of nearby celestial bodies. And maybe they have.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity was widely discounted until he managed to show that light really did bend around large bodies, thus that space bent because light itself doesn’t bend. So what is space, then, that it can bend? Is it a “something” or is it, (as all once believed) a “nothing”? We don’t know, and scientists admit we dont’ know.
Nobody has yet been able to find a consistent way to explain general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the theories (and findings) seem to contradict. But someday, someone will figure out something to show that they somehow both fit into a consistent overarching theory.
So what’s the story on Adam and Eve? We don’t know. But just because we don’t know and just because the current knowledge of genetics seems to preclude just two progenitors, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true.
One thing that has fascinated me is how, when I was very young, a great deal of the Biblical accounts of this or that were discounted as myths; perhaps respectable myths but myths just the same. But then, some of the recent “discoveries” in astrophysics seem to make more and more of the Genesis story entirely credible. That’s to say nothing of some of the lesser events, like the “Pillar of fire” (was it really Thera?) or the parting of the Red Sea (was it perhaps wind shutdown?). On and on. Was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps the explosion of a comet?
And more, were things like Thera and a comet planted into the mechanics of the cosmos by God from the very beginning? If He’s really God, he could do things like that; set natural forces in motion from the very beginning of the Big Bang, for instance, that would have exactly the right event at exactly the right time to have exactly the right result, and all in a “purely” natural way. We should not expect God to be hasty in His actions.
If, say, the genes of a fruit fly can be changed with a dentist’s x-ray, once and for sure, and without necessitating changing a thousand fruit flies, who is to say some force could not be brought to bear that would change them in a human being; an altogether new change, and one that is presently unknown. If Monsanto can alter the DNA of corn to make it resist a chemical that would kill all other corn, would not allow the corn to reproduce naturally or even spread its DNA, why would we assume God couldn’t do something much more astonishing?
And if God could set Thera up for an eruption of exactly the right kind at exactly the right moment, in exactly the right place from the very dawn of time, is there any really good reason to believe Him unable to set things in motion in the molecules and genes of His living creatures sufficient to produce exactly the right thing at exactly the right time to suit His purposes, the same being the production of two entirely unique creatures who nonetheless would contain all the DNA (or precursors thereof) to produce a very diverse population all by themselves?
If He’s God, He certainly could do those things. The only remaining questions are whether, in fact, He did, and why. But our own present understanding of how things work on a very small scale and with severely limited knowledge resources, does not preclude His having a better understanding on a scale so huge we may never be able to grasp it.
I very much doubt I’ll ever know the reality of the Adam and Eve story on this side of Jordan. But I’m not troubled by it, as I expect it to be revealed to me by and by; that and a lot of other things besides. If we truly are destined for the Beatific Vision, we’re going to learn a lot, and we’ll never stop drinking from that inexhaustible font. That I don’t know it all now, does not trouble me. Nor should it.
G
grotto
Guest
All our unknowns are known to God. Adam and Eve took the first bite - to be like God, and maybe even better! Everyone after, in their own way, fall for it.
We can explore our world and learn as much as we can but everything and everyone belong to God.
God has created wonders beyond our comprehension. Jesus said His Father has created
Heaven with mansions for our eternal life with Him.
We exist to know God, love Him, and serve Him in this life in order to be with him in the next. That satisfies my questions - living this life is a blessing while we serve Him.
Its a great comfort to think about it. :heaven:
We can explore our world and learn as much as we can but everything and everyone belong to God.
God has created wonders beyond our comprehension. Jesus said His Father has created
Heaven with mansions for our eternal life with Him.
We exist to know God, love Him, and serve Him in this life in order to be with him in the next. That satisfies my questions - living this life is a blessing while we serve Him.
Its a great comfort to think about it. :heaven:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I don’t see where our summations of the Catechism differ other than on the meaning of first man or the like terminology. I think the use is in keeping with the allegorical nature of the scripture, but I don’t think you do. Adam is consistently referred to in a cryptic way. He is never referred to as the first living human being, that l am aware of.
G
grannymh
Guest
You have my sincere sympathy for your loss.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
G
grannymh
Guest
By reading the first three chapters of Genesis as if they are allegorical, the real existence of human beauty and the reality of God’s unending love are lost. The magnificence of the original relationship between God and Adam is lost. Probably lost forever since only a few Catholics refer to it. The allegory approach is a good way to lose the Divinity of Jesus Christ. That loss impacts chapter 6, Gospel of John. With the allegory approach, we are a pawn in the hands of modern Arianism.
You and many other Catholics have my sincere sympathy for your loss and their loss which is real, not allegorical.
G
GEddie
Guest
As long as it is remembered, it can be regained.
ICXC NIKA
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I don’t see the loss of any of the truths in the story by reading it as an allegory. Everything you mention, I still see there. I don’t question the truths of the story. I’m trying to show the OP that there CANNOT be a conflict between proven science and Church teaching. The Church would not deny something that God made happen, we’re not fundamentalists.
Your assuming Catholics who accept God’s creation are opposed to an allegorical Jewish creation story. Not so. The truth of the story lies in its meaning, just like a parable.
Again, I assure you nothing is lost. To me, the allegory only reinforces the nature of God’s divinity and our humanity here on earth. It requires a deeper faith, one that cannot be rattled by athiests. Definitely no conflict with Jesus’ divinity. Arianism has no place in this, Jesus’ divinity has nothing to do with whether Adam was a real person or whether Adam is a representation of humanity at the moment of first Revelation, when the original rejection of God occurred.
At any rate, the beauty and mystery of it is that we can come to the same conclusion while seeing two different things.
T
The_Serpent
Guest
Adam and Eve were the first to have a immortal soul. After the fall they lost Paradise and the exalted state God granted them. It is said in scripture, but why can’t God give souls to other people after Adam and Eve?
A
Arizona_Fat_Gir
Guest
No matter what, there would have had to be the first parents somewhere along the line. Maybe Adam and Eve are not just metaphors. Whoever were the very first parents would have names, and Adam and Eve are as good as any other names to be chosen.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
All you’ve said here is that inbreeding brings about ‘flaws’.
Well, LOL, we already knew that. You and I are both the product of inbreeding insofar as being related to common ancestors who were cousins, or cousins of cousins - or even brothers and sisters. And yes the traits we think ‘normal’ about ourselves might be regarded as ‘flaws’ by our respective ancestors and/or descendants.
Having vestigial organs could be regarded as flaws. Having partly reptilian brains could be regarded as a flaw. But here we both are - flaws and all.
Sorry, you’re gonna have to come up with a better refutation of Adam and Eve than special pleading about what 8 ancient humans can and can’t do.
G
grannymh
Guest
God does give a spiritual soul to each descendant of Adam and Eve. It is this spiritual soul at conception which determines a real human person.Adam and Eve were the first to have a immortal soul. After the fall they lost Paradise and the exalted state God granted them. It is said in scripture, but why can’t God give souls to other people after Adam and Eve?
Paragraph 366, the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**366 **The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
- Status