Fascinating conversations, guys!
I must say, I can’t help but look at Genesis and see it as a profound mythology detailing the human condition (sin as pertains to free will) and its origins. Nevertheless, to conclude that Adam and Eve were actual, historical people seems… well, far-fetched to me at times. I used to think, “If life originated for creatures separately, then it would be entirely possible for man to evolve as an asexual organism, develop proper genderal roles, and we’d end up with Adam and Eve, so to speak.” But understanding now the odds against the formation of life on earth to begin with, I’m rooting, I think, much more for Common Ancestry. It just seems to be more realistic in this sense. THEN AGAIN, to confuse man with animal is an entirely understandable mistake scientifically speaking (when only empirical, biological conditions are taken into account), but philosophically, its ramifications are infinitely disastrous!
Man’s endowment with what we call a soul–encompassing his free will, artistic creativity, capacity for love and expression, the ability to tame primal desire, his contemplation and sentience–is an easily observed phenomenon, as is his duality: His constant struggle with his inner self and with carnal desire. These things were being observed, even if not properly understood, by cultures and peoples long before the Genesis narrative came to be. It is, in a sense, a summary of these observations in the form of a story, in other terms, a “mythology” by the word’s denotation. However, the idea of special endowment is increasingly intriguing to me: That God chose two representatives from among the homo sapiens and endowed them with human souls. In this theory, I can more rightly see God as saying to his creation, “I love you and want communion with you. But I give you a choice…” The Man and Woman are allowed to choose for themselves Life or Death, yet the primal Parents had known neither, only survival, to this point. Persuaded by the preexistent (not in sense of eternal, but rather in the sense of predating) dark forces of the universe, Man spurns his Maker’s offer.
Now having for the first time been given an option to seek his Maker’s face (as before survival was his sole part in existence), he is overcome by shame, by guilt, feelings new and strange, and signs indicative of sin. Man is basic and simple still at this point, physically identical to his homo sapien counterparts, and able to interbreed. Logically, this is what he does. The spurn of this adam, the original sin, is passed down to all subsequent generations. The Genesis account paints this same picture, just laden with images and symbols that add depth to the allegorical tale.
This is my line of thinking. Special endowment, for me, is the most logical route for a Catholic to take–or for any Christian faced with the concept of Original Sin.
Man’s great mistake was choosing himself over his Creator–his Lover–and selfishly indulging in the pleasures, choosing to seek fulfillment and insight apart from the Almighty Ordainer of things, which he has, on even the most base level, since that special endowment been aware of…
Any thoughts?
(P.S. I am truly hoping, but can anyone, without throwing in a lot of “buts” or “wells”, tell me whether the Church allows its adherents to believe in Common Ancestry? Thanks!)
We both already know that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It appears you wish to reconcile that theory with the following information. Let me know if I am correct.