The Garden of Eden was different, God wouldn’t create Adam and Eve just to have them ripped apart by a lion. Don’t forget God stopped lions from eating Daniel so He can do the same for Adam and Eve.
- Status
C
CaptFun
Guest
- Well done and succinctly. But what else should we expect from someone who can and does quote Aquinas? 
:tiphat:
K
Kelt
Guest
Just other animals ripped apart by a lion? Cruel world isn’t it?
G
grannymh
Guest
So, what is the conclusion regarding Adam and Eve? Based on post 29?
Is it?
Adam kills an animal and takes meat for Eve to cook, the Lion is queuing up for his portion.
Job done.
K
Kelt
Guest
MY conclusion?
You have a myth (and I use that word carefully - it doesn’t mean there are no truths within the story) and over centuries it has been woven within a religion until some of its members make it’s literal reading essential to the core of their understanding of the said religion. In times past it was easy to believe this literal version and it was therefore no big deal. Now is different. The more science threatens the literal version, the more people are forced to think about the meanings behind the myth - to re-look into the traditions of the authors, the use of myths throughout history etc. this some people manage without their religious faith coming tumbling down. Others have found it necessary to use the mental and verbal gymnastics like this example, to support the very literal variation of understanding the myth.
Lions have teeth to rip up their prey. They presumably didn’t have teeth for grazing in paradise. Nature is cruel - red in tooth and claw. Would Adam and Eve have been vegan? Or would they have hunted and killed with the rest of nature? Is it paradise where there is suffering? Or doesn’t animal suffering count?
My point is that, whatever lengths people go to (and they are heroic) to make reality fit the myth, it’s really a very human oversimplification of how we got here. That’s really got to be beyond our real understanding.
K
Kelt
Guest
Not sure that lions and queuing is a concept I can quite grasp…haha!
C
Cecilia73
Guest
Well, there’s that whole "be fruitful and multiply thing. That was said before the fall.
K
Kelt
Guest
Yes and why on earth would people engage in the sex act without concupiscence? You know how children react when there’s any mention of sex? …ugh!! If they didn’t naturally develop a ‘desire’ when they matured…well, there wouldn’t be many of us here!!
G
grannymh
Guest
I appreciate your intense effort in post 45. Thank you sincerely.
However, without specifying a truth taught by the Catholic Church, this conclusion appears to be about the same, give or take proper names, as a presentation about the Greek and Roman gods.
From post 29.
“First there is the significance of the unequal relationship between God the Creator and Adam the human creature.”
I can see that in Greek mythology there were some cases in which there was an unequal relationship simply due to the position of Zeus. So it is easy to substitute Zeus for the “Maker of heaven and earth” (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) in a general description of myth history.
A general presentation of myth history without a direct relationship to Catholicism is an appropriate way of avoiding a serious study of the first three chapters of Genesis. That way, basic truths of Catholicism do not need to be addressed.
K
Kelt
Guest
Which came first…the basic ‘truths’ of Catholisism or the creation myth??I appreciate your intense effort in post 45. Thank you sincerely.
However, without specifying a truth taught by the Catholic Church, this conclusion appears to be about the same, give or take proper names, as a presentation about the Greek and Roman gods.
From post 29.
“First there is the significance of the unequal relationship between God the Creator and Adam the human creature.”
I can see that in Greek mythology there were some cases in which there was an unequal relationship simply due to the position of Zeus. So it is easy to substitute Zeus for the “Maker of heaven and earth” (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) in a general description of myth history.
A general presentation of myth history without a direct relationship to Catholicism is an appropriate way of avoiding a serious study of the first three chapters of Genesis. That way, basic truths of Catholicism do not need to be addressed.
I’m finding it a bit difficult to understand you re Greek mythology, but it appears to me that this serious study you refer to is dedicated to squeezing the myth into the pot of Catholicism…
G
grannymh
Guest
Because of free speech, any person can refer to the pot of Catholicism.
In answer to the question: “Which came first…the basic ‘truths’ of Catholicism or the creation myth??”
In the Catholic Church, God came first. Genesis 1:1.
In Greek mythology, Zeus is considered a primary figure. Is mythology in the pot of Catholicism different from the pot offering gifts to the mythological Zeus? No wonder the unmentionable “truths” of Catholicism are a* bit difficult to understand.
*Perhaps, a better discussion could be had, if one would state which Catholic truth flows from the first three chapters of Genesis. Then we would know if the existence of God is being attacked. Being open, is better than throwing darts in the dark.
K
Kelt
Guest
Nope, this thread is purely about ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’, and I think Zeus retired long ago.Because of free speech, any person can refer to the pot of Catholicism.
In answer to the question: “Which came first…the basic ‘truths’ of Catholicism or the creation myth??”
In the Catholic Church, God came first. Genesis 1:1.
In Greek mythology, Zeus is considered a primary figure. Is mythology in the pot of Catholicism different from the pot offering gifts to the mythological Zeus? No wonder the unmentionable “truths” of Catholicism are a* bit difficult to understand.
Perhaps, a better discussion could be had, if one would state which Catholic truth flows from the first three chapters of Genesis. Then we would know if the existence of God is being attacked. Being open, is better than throwing darts in the dark.
The myth says, I believe, that they were chucked out of paradise because Eve was tempted by a snake to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge after that was forbidden by God, and in turn, she tempted Adam. With this knowledge they found that they were naked and somehow developed a sense of shame for they used the leaves of the tree to cover up their genitals. Up until this time they had lived some sort of ideal existence in (total?) ignorance of…I’m not sure what? For this disobedience by these first people, everyone in the whole wide world (except Mary and Jesus) were punished by God for this one thing…hence original sin.
Now, just how much of this story do you think people should believe LITERALLY today in order to preserve the concept of original sin?
G
grannymh
Guest
“Now, just how much of this story do you think people should believe LITERALLY today in order to preserve the concept of original sin?”
answer. Genesis 1: 26-28. As Creator, God interacted with the two first human beings.
K
Kelt
Guest
But ALL literal? Paradise where everything is lovely all the time (except for animals)? The tree, the fruit, the snake…you haven’t answered my question.
D
davidv
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
May I ask if this first answer (from post 53) has been accepted as literal?
*“answer. Genesis 1: 26-28. As Creator, God interacted with the two first human beings.” *
So, the first thing which needs to be established is whether or not the first answer is true. Is there a literal God Who is the literal Creator?
Please take your time with this question. This is Thanksgiving weekend and I will be having fun with family, including my grannykids.
:grouphug:
K
Kelt
Guest
I don’t know. I’d like to think there is…so for the sake of the argument, let’s take it as read that there is one God which created everything. Then we can move onto these first people and their Paradise.
I wish you a great celebratory weekend!
K
Kelt
Guest
But you don’t have to believe in this literally as a Catholic!
D
davidv
Guest
I don’t know what this means.
The Church doesn’t force anyone to believe anything.
It does not have a goon squad going after those who call themselves Catholic who do not believe the doctrines of the Church.
However, one puts their future happiness at risk by ignoring the truths of Church doctrines.
- Status