Where do you think sin came from?

[fhansen]

Scripture can have both a literal and spiritual meaning simultaneously. This is from the Catholic Catechism:

**The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The *moral *sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
**

 

[SSTeacher]

First, I do not accept evolution with respect to humanity, but in answer to the question I like this explaination. It is a footnote in the New Jerusalem Bible for Genesis 2:16-17:
16 The Lord God gave the man a command. He said, “You can eat the fruit of any tree that is in the garden. 17 But you must not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you do, you can be sure that you will die.”

This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning will usurp. Hence it does not mean omniscience which fallen creatures do not possess, nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power for deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly; a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognize his nature as a created being. The first sin was an attack on Gods sovereignty, a sin of pride. This rebellion is described in concrete terms as the transgression of an express command of God for which the text uses the image of forbidden fruit.

Thanks for your submission.

I’m having some trouble understanding what you’re trying to explain to me. I had thought the “first sin” was the sin of the angels and that their sin was a sin of pride. The sin of Adam – or, if you’re an evolutionist who believes that humans evolved from lower forms of life, I guess I ought to refer to the first animal to evolve from an animal into a human made in the image of God – was a sin of disobedience.

It occurs to me (a little late, admittedly) that I’ve made a major omission by not seeking clarity as to what the word “sin” means and entails. Perhaps if you gave your definition of the word “sin” I’d be nearer to a state of comprehension?

Circumspectly,
Mick

 

[fhansen]

It occurs to me (a little late, admittedly) that I’ve made a major omission by not seeking clarity as to what the word “sin” means and entails. Perhaps if you gave your definition of the word “sin” I’d be nearer to a state of comprehension?

Sin is contagious.The angels’ sin was not essentially different in kind from our own. The first sin of man was the sin of disobedience but what can be more prideful than thinking one has the right to take Gods’ place of authority? Disobedience of God is essentially the sin of pride. And one indicator of original sin residing in man now is the very self-righteousness or pride in us which is the genesis of all subsequent sin.

 

[algebra]

Evil comes from good, because evil is the absense of good.

Evil is not the absence of good.

Evil is misdirected good.

The good we try to do is misdirected/deflected by satans whisperings.

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t know if the Church has an official position on the literalness of the story of Noah and the flood.

I’ll venture a guess the Catholic Church teaches that the story of Noah and the flood is historical and true. Saint Matthew – if you can believe him – tells his readers that Jesus referred to it in the following terms:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.

For myself, I don’t see much purpose in the story as allegory and I always read scripture literally and let it speak for itself whenever another sense of reading it is not obvious (for example, parables are meant to be parables and not necessarily based on actual events).

I very much agree with your approach. But I believe allegorical interpretations (even of parables) were routine in the Early Church.

On the other hand, certain truths revealed by scripture and our faith are more much more important and relevant to mans’ spiritual condition than others.

I agree entirely.

I would classify the doctrine of the fall, with an original sin committed by a literal set of parents common in ancestry to all mankind to be an example of such a truth. And this is an official position of the Church.

I agree again. Here’s a question, though. If the Catholic Church takes an “official position” are all Catholics bound by it?

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Scripture can have both a literal and spiritual meaning simultaneously. This is from the Catholic Catechism:

**The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses** of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The *moral *sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

The above is interesting and thought–provoking. Thanks for posting it.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Sin is contagious.

That’s certainly been my life experience.

The angels’ sin was not essentially different in kind from our own.

I don’t quite see it that way. I think it was different in that there was no evident external temptation. There was apparently something within them that caused them to do what they did and whatever it was it seems likely that it’s something intrinsic to angelic nature and as such is necessarily beyond human understanding.

The first sin of man was the sin of disobedience but what can be more prideful than thinking one has the right to take Gods’ place of authority? Disobedience of God is essentially the sin of pride.

With respect, I don’t think disobedience is in the same league as pride. Pride is on the list of seven deadly sins and disobedience isn’t. Pride is in a category all by itself because it attaches itself to anything and everything. It can even attach itself to something that is good and turn that good thing into a sin. In a single afternoon it can turn healthy competition into unhealthy combativeness and within the space of a few weeks it can turn a man of prayer into a man of spiritual pride. Disobedience does not possess such depth.

And one indicator of original sin residing in man now is the very self-righteousness or pride in us which is the genesis of all subsequent sin.

Yes, I’ll agree that we humans are deeply flawed. That has been the effect of sin. We do not naturally choose what is good. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do, wrote Saint Paul, going on to add, I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.

We can perhaps agree that sin is the central problem of the human race?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Verisimilitude]

Thanks for your submission.

I’m having some trouble understanding what you’re trying to explain to me. I had thought the “first sin” was the sin of the angels and that their sin was a sin of pride. The sin of Adam – or, if you’re an evolutionist who believes that humans evolved from lower forms of life, I guess I ought to refer to the first animal to evolve from an animal into a human made in the image of God – was a sin of disobedience.

It occurs to me (a little late, admittedly) that I’ve made a major omission by not seeking clarity as to what the word “sin” means and entails. Perhaps if you gave your definition of the word “sin” I’d be nearer to a state of comprehension?

Circumspectly,
Mick

My definition of sin is that footnote explanation which I typed out and I will admit it took much contemplation over some time for it to make sense to me though now it seems more obvious and simple. I could not explain it any better than that I don’t think. I suppose it would be similar for those non-corporal created beings such as Angels that exist since they too seem to be rational beings with an ability to choose to act with moral independence that can be contrary to God.

Another allegorical explanation of that pre-human creation period that helps shape my thought is the first two chapters of Tolkiens work, the Silmarillion. He was Catholic and had a hand in translating one or more books in the NJB, and he has described many of his stories such as the Lord of the Rings as a very “Catholic work”. (See the quip in “Render unto Caesar” pg 43-45 by Arch-Bishop Charles Chaput)~ You might even find that hitting closer to home on another level as I read your bio.

Maybe I should ask if you are an evolutionist since I stated I am not. I personally cannot reconcile the evolutionary development of human beings with my understanding of the uniqueness of Adam and Eve. For man (Adam) to have evolved from a lower species as you described, the time and interbreeding of various species it requires according to evolution seems to contradict the theology. I consider myself an old-Earth creationist. It is a longer explanation and maybe off topic but suffice it to say I take no issue with science I just doubt some of the conclusions drawn by secularists/others with regard to science and the reality I know of as God in my Catholic faith.

I’ll add an oddity to this discussion. I reject the Quran in total as it relates to any understanding or revelation from God, but I do believe and accept a few things in it that are somewhat related to the topic. I think Mohammed was visited by a spirit- the same that tempted Christ in the desert 600 years earlier. That spirit is often quoted in the Quran and what it describes about refusing to bow down to Adam, promises to lead astray all but a few and the many many false teachings about God/Jesus- the Father of Lies speaks true to his nature in that. See John 8:44.

There are many paradoxes to contemplate.

 

[fhansen]

We can perhaps agree that sin is the central problem of the human race?

Ecumenically,
Mick

Yes, especially if by sin we mean a lack of love in us. All individual sins are expressions of that lack of love and caused by it.

**1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125 **

 

[josie_L]

My reason for posting this question is that I hope to get an idea of how Catholics understand the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. I’d like to hear from anybody, though, whatever his or her chosen belief. I’m working out of an American Evangelical Protestant mindset. . .

The Bible doesn’t explain how creation took place. That’s to be expected because it isn’t a science textbook. Genesis 1:1 is perhaps the most overwhelming verse in the entire Bible. From nothing, nothing comes. That’s the rule, isn’t it? So how can something come from nothing? Moreover, it’s impossible to get a mental picture of nothing. . .

In the Evangelical view, what has happened since Origin of Species is that atheists (many of whom, these days, are scientists – like British zoologist, Richard Dawkins, who has written that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist) have jumped on the evolutionary bandwagon and in the process have convinced many people that it’s possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.

I think this is the main reason why Evangelicals have reservations about the theory of evolution. Science, compartmentalized in this way, makes God unnecessary. Notice how clever this is. It isn’t posited that science proves that God doesn’t exist – only that God is unnecessary. But the effect is just the same. Science gently but insidiously displaces God in people’s minds – and that’s the battle pretty much won. As the children continue to be taught that God isn’t necessary and is at best merely an option it’s inevitable that future generations will see the churches in this country become as deserted as those in England.

I can’t prove it but I have a feeling that what is currently happening is that Christians in the scientific field have been subtly influenced toward seeing the whole of creation in the way the atheists see it so there’s every likelihood of finding Christians who are scientists unaware that they are holding views that have been built on atheistic presuppositions. So when these Christians put the case for evolution, they are often putting the atheist’s case without realizing it. In fact, they possibly do a better job than the atheists because while evolution purports to explain the how of creation, it can never explain the why. So, God is simply tacked on to the theory of evolution; God is mentioned to make the theory acceptable; God becomes the servant of the theory of evolution – and the why is neatly tied in.

It has seemed to me that Bible–believing Christians ought to put the Bible first and then expect science to align itself with what the Bible says. If they do that then evolution remains no more than a theory that is held as a possibility only by people who are willing to accept the attendant assumptions upon which the theory rests. But if scientific theories are put first without the assumptions being questioned as part of an attempt to bring what the Bible says in line with the theory then Evangelicals see that there is a danger of going awry. In summation, then, the theory of evolution contains a number of inherent dangers for Bible–believing Christians.

So what I’m considering is this. If I were to decide to convert to Catholicism what adjustments to my thinking would I have to make with regard to this issue . . .

Undecidedly,
Mick

I believe that we must decipher the world around us through Faith and Reason (I believe Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical on this subject), and use the tools God gave us (our mind for instance), to do otherwise would lead us into error.

I see God’s Truth as reflected in Sacred Scriptures/Traditions and the teachings of the Church, but also in the Universe that we live in. To understand that Universe we need both Faith and Reason. This is where Science comes in, and the Bible relevant to our understanding of the Universe (and all its creation), is to be used as a reference point. As you yourself have mentioned the Bible cannot tell us the “how” of Creation, but Science can.

Is the Theory of Evolution really conflictive with the exegis that God has created all, no. People like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet would wish to create some kind of divide between Theology and Science, but this is patently false. In the book, “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, the author has this to say:

 "Science cannot be used to justify discounting the great
  monotheistic religions of the World . . It is the height of 
  scientific hubris to claim otherwise.  But that leaves us with 
  a challenge:  if the existence of God is true, and if certain
  scientific conclusions about the natural world are also true
  then they cannot contradict each other.  A fully harmonious
  synthesis must be possible."

Unfortunately, the Theory of Evolution, has been hijacked to mean “God doesn’t exist, and we are nothing more than accidental molecules,” only because most scientists are atheists and hence interpret the theory with their worldview in mind. Francis Collins states that there is more than one way of viewing the theory of Evolution, and this is known to some as Theistic Evolution. Theistic evolution does not conflict with what is known in Science about the natural world. Even our beloved Pope John Paul II was a great admirer of Theistic Evolution. I would believe that the Catholic Church holds to such a view as well.

Therefore believing in Evolution as well as the Bible should not have to conflict. And God is subject to neither.

P.S. Sorry, I had to edit your original quote to fit my response in. They only allow 6000 characters.

 

[SSTeacher]

My definition of sin is that footnote explanation which I typed out and I will admit it took much contemplation over some time for it to make sense to me though now it seems more obvious and simple. I could not explain it any better than that I don’t think.

Fair enough.

I suppose it would be similar for those non-corporal created beings such as Angels that exist since they too seem to be rational beings with an ability to choose to act with moral independence that can be contrary to God.

But in the case of angels with their gigantic intellects far above that of humans who are situated in state of perfect bliss, I just wonder what more could they possibly want? There could have been no external cause for their sin so it must have been something internal.

Another allegorical explanation of that pre-human creation period that helps shape my thought is the first two chapters of Tolkiens work, the Silmarillion. He was Catholic and had a hand in translating one or more books in the NJB, and he has described many of his stories such as the Lord of the Rings as a very “Catholic work”. (See the quip in “Render unto Caesar” pg 43-45 by Arch-Bishop Charles Chaput)~ You might even find that hitting closer to home on another level as I read your bio.

Okey–Dokey.

Maybe I should ask if you are an evolutionist since I stated I am not.

No, I’m not an evolutionist.

I personally cannot reconcile the evolutionary development of human beings with my understanding of the uniqueness of Adam and Eve. For man (Adam) to have evolved from a lower species as you described, the time and interbreeding of various species it requires according to evolution seems to contradict the theology. I consider myself an old-Earth creationist. It is a longer explanation and maybe off topic but suffice it to say I take no issue with science I just doubt some of the conclusions drawn by secularists/others with regard to science and the reality I know of as God in my Catholic faith.

I pretty much agree. I’m not prepared to state categorically that evolution is false, though. I just refuse to get behind it until the evolutionists have proved their case. It seems to me that the early chapters of Genesis do not lend themselves to the notion God used evolution when He created everything that exists. Yet although there is nothing in Genesis to suggest that when God created the heavens and the earth He prearranged for monkeys, fish, sand pebbles and amoeba droppings to turn into human beings, the notion that this is what actually happened appears to be gaining popularity inside Christendom. The theory of evolution is light years away from being a scientific fact (assuming the speed of light is a constant) and while those who believe in evolution may perhaps be commended for their faith those of us who do not necessarily believe in evolution are entitled to pose the logical questions that occur to us.

Why is the missing link still missing? How do evolutionists explain the amazing creatures that God made which defy evolution? At what point in history did humans evolve into the image of God and thus became morally responsible? Is sin a social construct and a meaningless concept in the real world or is sin the central problem of the human race and the reason why we need a Savior, the Lord Jesus?

These are not unreasonable questions. While awaiting answers Christians might spend time reflecting upon the fact that the theory of evolution posits a closed system that declares God to be unnecessary, which suggests that a synthesis between the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis and the theory of evolution isn’t really feasible. Such a synthesis would only become necessary if and when the evolutionists prove their case.

There are many paradoxes to contemplate.

Indeed there are.

You’ve been most helpful. Thanks a lot

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[josie_L]

Having free will is what led to disobedience, which led to sin, which led to Lucifer being cast out of Heaven, which led to his tempting Of Adam and Eve, which led to their disobedience, which introduced Sin to the rest of humanity (Original Sin).

 

[geometer]

Isaiah 45:6-7

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the
Lord, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

[SSTeacher]

Isaiah 45:6-7

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the
Lord, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Many thanks, geometer, for the above quote from the King James Version of the Bible. The New American Bible on the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops website renders those same verses as follows:

…so that toward the rising and the setting of the sun men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other; I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well–being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.

The footnote in my KJV Study Bible states:

…create evil refers to physical evil or calamity rather than moral evil. God is in no way pictured in Scripture as the author of sin.

Didactically,
Mick

 

[Verisimilitude]

But in the case of angels with their gigantic intellects far above that of humans who are situated in state of perfect bliss, I just wonder what more could they possibly want? There could have been no external cause for their sin so it must have been something internal.

Its why I referenced the fiction of Tolkien in the Silmarillion’s first two chapters (and the Quranic reference to Ibliss/Satan) as it gives some means to try and understand what may have been their cause in our reality. Tolkien gives a creation account of Middle Earth that I think has some insight to our own- specifically why those other beings created in a state of bliss and perfection- free from things like hunger and poverty, but the desire for power and mastery of things other than self is generated. It seems an inspired work, not directly or even purposely as we hold the Gospels but closer to that of music we may use as an accompaniment to our worship of God.

These are not unreasonable questions. While awaiting answers Christians might spend time reflecting upon the fact that the theory of evolution posits a closed system that declares God to be unnecessary, which suggests that a synthesis between the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis and the theory of evolution isn’t really feasible. Such a synthesis would only become necessary if and when the evolutionists prove their case.

Not unreasonable at all, and while these mysteries remain a mystery, I have generated my own synthesis by way of a logic and reason with an acceptance of some unreasonableness: the supernatural in limited but significant ways. I accept the miracles shown through Moses of the OT and those of Jesus in the NT.

The context of which we can place in a historical timeline past chapter 12 of Genesis. The historical timeline before Abraham is less clear but no less believable if we just understood it in another context.

Whatever the ‘truth’ of the matter turns out to be it should not contradict the truth of God. The Jewish authorities that killed Christ didn’t recognize the truth of Jesus though they knew it by Scripture. He tells them this quite clearly in Johns Gospel. I sometimes think the same with modern science. The ‘missing link’ will never be found for there is none, like the bones of Jesus will never be found for they remain with Him.

Even after Jesus’ 3 year ministry with many many miracles, the Apostles did not believe a trusted member of their own group, albeit a female that He rose from the dead. It took physical visitations and Pentecost with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for it to take root and to produce the Church and written Gospels. Amazing.

Indeed there are.

You’ve been most helpful. Thanks a lot

Sincerely,
Mick

Best of luck in your contemplations of God and the many mysteries, and my sincere prayers that you find what you seek.

 

[SSTeacher]

Best of luck in your contemplations of God and the many mysteries, and my sincere prayers that you find what you seek.

How very kind of you. By your graciousness you bring credit to yourself and to the Catholic Church that you represent.

Admiringly,
Mick

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If evolution is a fact and the Genesis account of creation isn’t literally true when and how did sin become a part of the human condition?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

I beleive that as Christians we must beleive the bible as the true word of God. John17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. I include here the genealogy from Jesus to Adam as found in Luke 3. There is no room in this genealogy for the millions of years of evolution. Also Romans 6:23 states: 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Also after God created man He said in Gen1:31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I don’t beleive that God would have called either sin or death very good so man must have been created with conditional immortality and this was done in the beginning just as it says in the bible and the first man must have been Adam just as it says in the bible

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

In Christ Richard

 

[LilyM]

The Catholic position is that while Genesis might not be true in every particular, we ARE obliged to believe that all of humanity descended from two individuals, a man and a woman, albeit they may not have been named Adam and Eve etc etc.

And that these two individuals brought Original Sin into the world by their disobedience to God.

 

[SSTeacher]

Theistic evolution does not conflict with what is known in Science about the natural world. Even our beloved Pope John Paul II was a great admirer of Theistic Evolution. I would believe that the Catholic Church holds to such a view as well.

The Catholic position is that while Genesis might not be true in every particular, we ARE obliged to believe that all of humanity descended from two individuals, a man and a woman, albeit they may not have been named Adam and Eve etc etc.

And that these two individuals brought Original Sin into the world by their disobedience to God.

There seems to be a difference of opinion here. I’m uncertain as to the true “Catholic position” and even there is one I’ve no idea if Catholics are obliged to adhere to it.

Confusedly,
Mick

 

[LilyM]

There seems to be a difference of opinion here. I’m uncertain as to the true “Catholic position” and even there is one I’ve no idea if Catholics are obliged to adhere to it.

Confusedly,
Mick

Where is the difference of opinion? Theistic evolution doesn’t negate the fact that all of humanity could have descended from two individuals, whether those individuals came about through evolution from another species or creation ex nihilo.

Do a google on ‘mitochondrial Eve’ or ‘MRCA’ (most recent common ancestor) - it appears that a lot of non-religious scientists seem to think that all of humanity possibly descended from one common male and/or one common female ancestor.

When in doubt, consult the Catechism. It certainly is a standard codification of required belief for all Catholics, a ‘sure norm’ as JP2 put it. Not that all Catholics, regrettably, are familiar with it as they should be. It removes all doubt -

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

So we had ONE pair of ‘first parents’, not an unidentified larger group.