Was Death Present in the Garden of Eden, before the fall?

[larkin31]

God is not a ‘creature’.

You can use ‘several hundred words’ or several trillion. There is nothing you can say that will ever make me worship science.

Period.

Does this mean that you accept or reject the dating of fossil predators back at least hundreds of millions of years before the presence of humans?

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholicism should not be confused with fundamentalism and solar scripture.

Granny, what does “solar scripture” refer to?

 

[StAnastasia]

There is nothing you can say that will ever make me worship science. Period.

I am much relieved. Science is not an object of worship. Ever.

 

[StAnastasia]

Does this mean that you accept or reject the dating of fossil predators back at least hundreds of millions of years before the presence of humans?

That depends. Probably not unless science illiteracy can be an object of worship. Kentucky is poised to spend hundreds of millions (including public funds) on a creation-based theme park (the Ark Experience), which would suggest that illiteracy can become an object of worship.

 

[Wowbagger]

JM3 is correct that God is not a creature. God is a being. Since “creature” means “created being,” and God is uncreated, clearly God is no creature. My sentence was carelessly worded. However, the point stands. God is a fundamentally reasonable being.

Does this mean that you accept or reject the dating of fossil predators back at least hundreds of millions of years before the presence of humans?

He clearly rejects it, but refuses to say it aloud. (And if I am wrong, I invite him to say so.) He would prefer to insist upon the literal, context-deprived interpretation of isolated Scriptural passages, which granny correctly argues against, and refuse to consider the consequences for reason. In this, he departs from the teaching of the Church.
CCC #159:

Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

He denies the conclusions of reason, ignores alternative interpretations of his faith, and so perverts both by severing their essential Catholic unity.

Interestingly, JM3 shares this with the religion of Islam, which also has concluded that, if the conclusions of faith and the conclusions of reason contradict, the duty of the believer is not to unify the two, but to submit to the total sovereignty of Allah and reject the arguments of reason. This is one reason (among many) why apostasy is so harshly treated under Sharia law – because the sound reasonability and logical correctness of Catholic teaching compared to Islamic errors are not sufficient reason, under Islamic doctrine, to convert.

Even more interesting is Romans 5:12, which clearly implies that the sin of Adam spread death only to men, which further implies that death already existed for non-sapient creatures throughout the world, prior to the Fall. Take a look:
Douay-Rheims Romans 5:12:

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I haven’t dealt with the Scriptural support for the “pro-prehuman death” position before now, because I was trying to draw out a very important point about the unity of faith and reason. But JM3 has studiously avoided addressing any of that, and has sunk to name-calling instead, so I might as well mention it now.

The death of beasts and plants existed on Earth prior to the Fall. We can draw no clear conclusions about death within the Garden of Eden, especially since we know so little about the literal reality of Eden. But we can certainly conclude, on examination of the Sacred Deposit, Genesis, Humani Generis, and the plain observed facts of reality, that there was death. The Fall brought human death into the world.

Much more interesting to me is the question of how our first two parents (whom we call Adam and Eve) could personally bear the entire human race, given the problems of inbreeding and a miniscule gene pool.

 

[larkin31]

…Much more interesting to me is the question of how our first two parents (whom we call Adam and Eve) could personally bear the entire human race, given the problems of inbreeding and a miniscule gene pool.

And one son kills the other!

 

[larkin31]

…He clearly rejects it, but refuses to say it aloud. (And if I am wrong, I invite him to say so.)

You appear to be correct.

 

[StAnastasia]

Much more interesting to me is the question of how our first two parents (whom we call Adam and Eve) could personally bear the entire human race, given the problems of inbreeding and a miniscule gene pool.

The genetic evidence is that they were not the sole parents of all human beings. Humans develoepd from pre-human hominids as a group rather than as a single pair plunked down in a garden.

 

[rdscheirer]

Death was always present.It was when the forebears of the human race became sentient that they realized that there must be “something more” and God came and gave the human race a soul. I majored in Physics in college-we can go back now to about 2000,000 yrs after the “big bang” with all the telescopes and monitoring paraphanalia but still can’t say “Why?”. Albert Einstein said it best when asked-“Is ther a God?” He replied “There has to be”.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, what does “solar scripture” refer to?

For angels, it refers to the stars.

For me, it refers to interpreting the scriptures on one’s own, i.e., sola scriptura without a Latin spell check.

 

[larkin31]

The genetic evidence is that they were not the sole parents of all human beings. Humans develoepd from pre-human hominids as a group rather than as a single pair plunked down in a garden.

Do any Catholics actually still think that no other humans were ever created by God except two? In other words, does anyone still believe that when Adam and Eve left the Garden, there were no other humans to breed with and that ALL of humanity for ever after came ONLY from the inter-family breeding of that original set of two parents, children, grandchildren?

 

[grannymh]

Much more interesting to me is the question of how our first two parents (whom we call Adam and Eve) could personally bear the entire human race, given the problems of inbreeding and a miniscule gene pool.

Incest was not a problem with the gene pool being pristine. The pattern of mutations was in its innocent infancy. Recent research has determined that the human person has 20,000 to 25,000 genes. Given the birth rate and overlapping generations, there would be lots of real, fully complete human persons migrating outward.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

The genetic evidence is that they were not the sole parents of all human beings. Humans develoepd from pre-human hominids as a group rather than as a single pair plunked down in a garden.

Plunked down? Now that is funny!

 

[larkin31]

Incest was not a problem with the gene pool being pristine. The pattern of mutations was in its innocent infancy. Recent research has determined that the human person has 20,000 to 25,000 genes. Given the birth rate and overlapping generations, there would be lots of real, fully complete human persons migrating outward.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

So, what is your answer? I wasn’t asking if incest was a problem. I asked if any Catholics still believe that there were no other humans available to breed other than the original family. Is your answer “Yes, I believe that there were no other humans available to breed except that original family and their children”?

 

[grannymh]

So, what is your answer? I wasn’t asking if incest was a problem. I asked if any Catholics still believe that there were no other humans available to breed other than the original family. Is your answer “Yes, I believe that there were no other humans available to breed except that original family and their children”?

I was answering Wowbagger.

Regardless, this is the way I present my statement of belief. You may take it or leave it.
** I believe that there are two, sole, real parents of the human species.**
Please note that I respect the current ban on evolution discussion in this forum.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[Gregory_I]

Death DID enter the world on account of Man’s Sin, but man did not originate death.

Satan is the AUthor of death. His fall sent out a discordant Cosmic ripple, because it was the first note to “go sour” in the symphony of creation.

“By the Envy of the Devil, death came into the world.” is what scripture says. And the devil brought it to man who accepted it for this world, and he was the gate of sin. THerefore Christ, the new adam, is the gate of heaven and the church is the gate to Christ.

 

[StAnastasia]

For angels, it refers to the stars. For me, it refers to interpreting the scriptures on one’s own, i.e., sola scriptura without a Latin spell check.

Stellar scriptura – George Coyne talks about that in Wayfarers in the Cosmos. There was some guy referring here to “solo” scriptura.

 

[larkin31]

I was answering Wowbagger.

I overlooked that.

 

[CMcLaurin]

Here’s the last post I’ll make on this topic, for fear of both beating a dead horse and accumulating more upset messages in my inbox.

I’m a student of Catholic theology at Belmont Abbey College, a school noted for its faithfulness to the magisterium of the Church. I’ll quote the head of our Department of Theology for those who are interested:

Vis-a-vis the monogenism, the money quote is Humani Generis #37:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion,
namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such
liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains
that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did
not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first
parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be
reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the
documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard
to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an
individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and
is in everyone as his own.[12]

The last sentence indicates that it’s not monogenism per se, but
monogenism thought of as a necessary implication of original sin;
provide an understanding of original sin consistent with both the
tradition and polytheism, and there you are. This Rahner thought he’d
done in articles and the “monogenism” entry in Sacramentum Mundi.

Interestingly, no authoritative statement by either JPII or BXVI
(pre or post his promotion) repeats or revisits monogenism in any way
even when they’re repeating other aspects of HG on evolution.
Certainly one indication of doctrine in development, and it leads one
blogger to observe:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to speak of Adam and
Eve in monogenistic terms, and there has been no Vatican declaration
on any level (so far as I know) that polygenism is compatible, but
there is a greater degree of reserve shown by the pope on this subject
in recent years, and the Vatican has let pass local magisterial
statements–like that of the German conference of bishops’
catechism–that displayed openness to polygenism.
(jimmyakin.org/2006/01/a_reader_writes.html)

Cf. also #70 here, which appears to be deliberately written from a
position of neutrality on mono/polygenism.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

The Latin supports your interpretation, in the following two ways: (i)
The last two of the three sentences that you quote are really only one
in the Latin–when it’s really only one sentence, it’s clearer that
the prohibition of polygenism might not really be an absolute
condemnation, but instead the assertion that people shouldn’t hold
polygenism insofar as no one can see how to reconcile it with the
faith. (ii) What in that translation comes out as “Now it is in no
way” is really “cum nequaquam” in the Latin, which could easily (I
suggest) be rendered “since” or something like that.

The simple matter is this – choosing to believe in evolution and the consequentially necessary existence of death before the Fall is not contrary to the faith. The Church allows us to hold these views, but will not officially condemn nor condone them.

The Church does remind us, however, that faith and reason are complimentary. Augustine cautions Christians this way:

If they [nonbelievers] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)

I believe the bulk of reasonable evidence points to the existence of physical death before to fall. Interpreting the Catechism in such a way as to rule out this reasonable belief comes dangerously close to superstition, which is an enemy of faith.

The Church employs reason to judge matters of faith – this is evidenced in the Church’s reliance on the scientific and medical community to determine the validity of saints’ miracles. If the Church allows science and reason to contribute – and in some cases even judge – matters of faith, so should we.

The Catechism and other magisterial documents must be read in context of the whole.

It would be just as erroneous to take them and the Fathers out of context as it would be to do so with the Scriptures. And remember that the Fathers are not infallible.

 

[larkin31]

Here’s the last post I’ll make on this topic, for fear of both beating a dead horse and accumulating more upset messages in my inbox.

I’m a student of Catholic theology at Belmont Abbey College, a school noted for its faithfulness to the magisterium of the Church. I’ll quote the head of our Department of Theology for those who are interested:

The simple matter is this – choosing to believe in evolution and the consequentially necessary existence of death before the Fall is not contrary to the faith. The Church allows us to hold these views, but will not officially condemn nor condone them.

The Church does remind us, however, that faith and reason are complimentary. Augustine cautions Christians this way:

I believe the bulk of reasonable evidence points to the existence of physical death before to fall. Interpreting the Catechism in such a way as to rule out this reasonable belief comes dangerously close to superstition, which is an enemy of faith.

The Church employs reason to judge matters of faith – this is evidenced in the Church’s reliance on the scientific and medical community to determine the validity of saints’ miracles. If the Church allows science and reason to contribute – and in some cases even judge – matters of faith, so should we.

The Catechism and other magisterial documents must be read in context of the whole.

It would be just as erroneous to take them and the Fathers out of context as it would be to do so with the Scriptures. And remember that the Fathers are not infallible.

This is one of the clearest statements on this that I have read. Thanks for offering it. Good luck with your studies.