How did The fall of Adam and Eve Happen?

[ThisOne]

Not really. They retained the ability to live in Heaven (Paradise) forever

You said the above, so that’s why I asked my question. If they were expelled from the Garden, how could they have “retained the ability to live in Heaven (Paradise) forever”?

Thank you.

 

[thistle]

Let me repeat this. This is NOT an infallible nor non-infallible teaching of the Church.
I think you have read up on what Church doctrine actually is.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If by ‘allegorical’, you mean “it really happened, but not literally in the way the narrative describes”, then you’ve hit the Catholic teaching on the nose

*sigh

This is not Catholic teaching. More accurately, this is the minority view of theologians. The majority view has always been that the events of Genesis compose a literal history. The Church teaching on the subject is that there is some allowance for research into the issue, but that certain truths must be upheld.

You’re going to be sighing even more heavily, I’m afraid.

The subject was “the fall of man”. The Church does teach that this is a figurative account. CCC 390 asserts that “[t]he 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 .”

So, I stand by my assertion, since it accurately says what the Church teaches. (I think you misunderstood me to be talking about all of Genesis, which is, of course, a mixture of literary genres.)

Also, please stop misrepresenting Augustine. He did not propose evolution. In fact, he proposed the exact opposite.

Please stop misrepresenting what I write, then, too! I didn’t say that Augustine proposed evolution. I wrote that he, among others, recognized that the creation narratives weren’t literal history. You might want to read his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, in which he asserts that it’s not literal.

Please do not mislead people with innacurate language.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Not really. They retained the ability to live in Heaven (Paradise) forever

You said the above, so that’s why I asked my question. If they were expelled from the Garden, how could they have “retained the ability to live in Heaven (Paradise) forever”?

Thank you.

@ThisOne: @MasterHaster wrote this, not me. I also challenged him on this (erroneous) assertion. I don’t think he’s responded to that, yet…

 

[Gorgias]

What do you think the Martyrology is?
[/quote]

A liturgically-oriented document. Not a statement of doctrine, per se.

 

[BlueMaxx]

I am always amused at how overcomplicated some people make this subject.

God is and ever has been, He is the three Big O’s…he is/cannot be caught “by surprise”
He did not want “robots” or created creatures like some of the Angels whose only nature was to love Him.
He wanted a creature (man) who opted to love Him out of free will…
There had to be some kind of “skin in the game” for humans…a choice with consequences.
Otherwise we would not have the freedom to choose and respond to God, and He has every right to deal with those that reject His love.

Just a country boy’s opinion…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There had to be some kind of “skin in the game” for humans…a choice with consequences.

Interesting choice of words. Indeed, there are consequences for our actions, whether those actions be good or bad. I like to think of having children as being among one of the good consequences, which results in bringing us closer to being in God’s likeness. Being able to participate in the creation of an immortal soul is great gift. There is no greater way to have skin in the game.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

For Catholics who believe in evolution are they to believe that the precursors of Adam and Eve were also made to live forever or did God change the carbon-based biological life of Adam and Eve to make them the first life forms that would not die (until they sinned)?

This ^ seems to be scientific proof that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory.

 

[Gorgias]

This ^ seems to be scientific proof that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory.

If it asked a question that caused Catholics to step back from Church teaching, then I’d agree. The only thing is… it doesn’t. Rather, it misstates the situation, which is what the responses to that post have been pointing out.

 

[BlueMaxx]

BlueMaxx:

There had to be some kind of “skin in the game” for humans…a choice with consequences.

Interesting choice of words. Indeed, there are consequences for our actions, whether those actions be good or bad. I like to think of having children as being among one of the good consequences, which results in bringing us closer to being in God’s likeness. Being able to participate in the creation of an immortal soul is great gift. There is no greater way to have skin in the game.

Children are a blessing indeed.

However, I was referring to each and everyone of our “skins” individually.

Our submission and obedience…and our subsequent subjection to a final judgment where there are only two alternatives, one of which does not have a 3 Star Michelin rating as the penalty.

For with no penalty, we have no reason to either obey or disobey.

If, like a parent, God had said…“Oh well, you two did wrong but I’m’a gonna let this one slide”.

It would go against Gods nature and rules and laws.

Or perhaps he could have said,

“I will make you as such that when that wily ol’ serpent comes slithering by proffering apples against the orchardist “laws” you will not have the choice to go against the rules.”

Instead he made it possible to break that law, and hence our predicament with original sin.

The kicker is, and to go back to your children comment…He chose to create us knowing good and well He would have to give up His only son to come and live amongst a people he would rather spit out at times.
Not only that, he had to watch the same people He created to love, torture and kill that only son of His.
He did all this out of love, of love in the creation of us.
Us, a bunch of the most rotten apples that ever came from that garden, who do not even deserve to be worthy of being thrown into a compost pile.

No, He did it because He knew we were weak, but that in our weakness His strength is made perfect.

How did the fall of Adam and Eve happened is the question.

The question should be why God loved us so much?

Why create a creature that would revile and kill His only son?

A creature He even gave a choice, to chose evil or to search Him out and, like a radiant mirror, shine back that love He so created within us.

Only to redeem us, so that we may once more join the Godhead in the garden.

That is Love…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

This ^ seems to be scientific proof that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory.

If it asked a question that caused Catholics to step back from Church teaching, then I’d agree. The only thing is… it doesn’t. Rather, it misstates the situation, which is what the responses to that post have been pointing out.

I can’t make heads or tails of your response.

My post was a little tongue in cheek. Nevertheless, I meant that MasterHaster’s question points out the difficulty with taking the story of Adam and Eve as ‘history’ or ‘science’. We know the meaning of those terms today, ‘history and science’, to have hard, material meanings. There is no spiritual connotation to their meanings.

 

[Gorgias]

I can’t make heads or tails of your response.

Not sure what you’re noodling on. If @MasterHaster’s assertion about Adam and Eve – the assertion that caused you to posit that “Adam and Eve are only allegorical” – were the catalyst to make Catholics abandon Church teaching, then I’d agree with your assertion. However, MH’s assertion misstates the situation, so it doesn’t really do what you think it does. Hope that helps.

My post was a little tongue in cheek.

Nevertheless, I meant that MasterHaster’s question points out the difficulty with taking the story of Adam and Eve as ‘history’ or ‘science’. We know the meaning of those terms today, ‘history and science’, to have hard, material meanings. There is no spiritual connotation to their meanings.

Given that the teachings about Adam and Eve are really making assertions about souls as much as they are about human bodies, why would we presume that those teachings run afoul of ‘history’ or ‘science’? I mean, if I said “I think you have an immortal soul, @1Lord1Faith,” would there be a scientific response to that claim? And, since there is not… then why is the teaching difficult to accept?

 

[tafan2]

No death before the fall among animals is not Catholic teaching. Indeed it is not much of a stretch to say it goes against Catholic teachings. Immortality, infused knowledge, and lack of concupiscence were preternatural gifts to man by God, ie we were not due them from our created nature. I do not believe any of these gifts were granted to animals. That would be a stretch of the imagination.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Given that the teachings about Adam and Eve are really making assertions about souls as much as they are about human bodies

I would say the teachings are much more about the soul, our dignity, and our relationship to God rather than “as much as” about human bodies. I’m not sure that the teachings are about the human body at all.

why would we presume that those teachings run afoul of ‘history’ or ‘science’?

They don’t, unless someone thinks those teachings are about the human body.

Would the scientific community distinguish a homo sapien by his biological features and/or DNA, or by something else, like whether or not he buried his dead? And does the scientific community believe that Homo sapiens had a moment of ensoulment which distinguished them from a moment, or generation, before?

 

[EndTimes]

And does the scientific community believe that Homo sapiens had a moment of ensoulment which distinguished them from a moment, or generation, before?

What matters what they think… on matters outside their purview?

 

[EndTimes]

Using figurative language is a broad statement. You have turned “uses figurative language” into thr whole account being figurative. That’s the inaccuracy. The Church teaches that some of the language is figurative. This could be as simple as God “walking” or it could encompass the whole event. Your interpretation that it is the whole event is a private opinion, not teaching.

Exactly… Genesis is never Myth. Creation occurred.
Adam and Eve are the real first parents of Humans

The Fall Occured. Original Sin and Death came in. . Satan is real.

And the need for Redemption was put into Action

)

_

 

[Metis1]

Which author was supposedly there with Adam & Eve so as to report it?

For this, and some other reasons, I can only accept it as being allegorical, and using that approach then makes that narrative quite meaningful.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Which author was supposedly there with Adam & Eve so as to report it?

For this, and some other reasons, I can only accept it as being allegorical, and using that approach then makes that narrative quite meaningful.

Well, do you believe God spoke to Moses?
Did he not go up to the mountain and receive not only verbal but written instructions?
As they wandered about for forty years do you think it might not be conceivable that Moses was told by God?
He did seem to have a direct hotline to God…so it is not out of the question.
We can ask Moses when we pass this veil, but my bet is that he and God had many conversations and Moses was privy too many revelations…as God commanded.
God wants us to know His story in order for us to draw closer to Him.

 

[Gorgias]

I would say the teachings are much more about the soul, our dignity, and our relationship to God rather than “as much as” about human bodies. I’m not sure that the teachings are about the human body at all.

Good point. It’s about “humans”, rather than “human bodies”, and since we’re a body/soul composite, the question is really beyond the competence of scientists.

And does the scientific community believe that Homo sapiens had a moment of ensoulment which distinguished them from a moment, or generation, before?

Nope. Nor, if they considered the question on its merits, would they have any tools to discern anything about souls!

Innaccurate language again!

No: it’s the language of the catechism.

Using figurative language is a broad statement. You have turned “uses figurative language” into thr whole account being figurative. That’s the inaccuracy. The Church teaches that some of the language is figurative.

Nope. It’s the language of the catechism. It seems that you have a problem with the Church and her teaching, not with my phrasing.

Your interpretation that it is the whole event is a private opinion, not teaching.

I quoted the CCC. I didn’t interpret it.

 

[Gorgias]

Funny, last time I checked, both came from the same source.

…while ignoring what the CCC says, apparently.