Why should i believe that there was a literlal Garden of Eden?

[TimothyH]

Of course i my self have decided that i cannot accept religious ideas that reject the physical evidence and other sources of knowledge, but is Adam and eve really against the evidence; or is Adam and Eve our parents in a different sense that is not biological?

No, by “true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him”, HUMANI GENERIS means biological.

Please provide quantifiable “physical evidence” that bravery exists. Or humility.

How much does happiness weigh?

What color is sorrow?

What is the specific gravity of remorse or pride?

Point to awe. Show me where it is.

How deep is longing?

Name a physical attribute of love.

Do these things not exist?

I myself have decided that i cannot accept physical evidence and other sources of knowledge which reject the teaching of a Chruch enjoying God guaranteed infallibility.

I may make “fides quaerens intellectum” my signature line.

-Tim-

 

[StAnastasia]

There is one incontestable fact no scientific discovery will ever overturn. At some point in history a person must have realised (for the first time) he or she had done something wrong. And another person must have been involved. That was when moral evil appeared in the world. It was the original sin!

Tonrey, it need not have been one individual who took more than his share of woolly mammoth and condemned half the tribe to starvation. Consciousness of wrongdoing could have been the discovery of the entire evolving hominid community.

“Original sin” refers to the distortion of human nature, the general condition of sinfulness afflicting all humans as we grow into moral consciousness. In that sense the dawning consciousness of sin was inevitable as hominids developed self-awareness and other-awareness in their journey of becoming Homo sapiens.

 

[grannymh]

In St A’s eyes, i dare say that the problem is not the theology in and of its self, but rather it is its perceived failure to reflect the objective scientific evidence.

.

Actually, the problem of a literal Garden of Eden is in the Catholic theology per se. This is very evident in posts which attempt to answer the flat out question – What are the theological truths in the Garden of Eden account?

Please note that there is a difference between Protestant theology, Catholic theology and secular theology. Secular theology can be found on certain websites and in certain organizations promoting cooperation between religion and science. The context for the use of the word secular is this definition “2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.” *American Heritage College Dictionary. *The operative word is specifically.

Secular theology can be tricky – at least the way it is presented. For example. An answer to the question “What are the theological truths in the Garden of Eden Account” can be any version of bad things happen to good people.

In reality, your comment “In St A’s eyes, i dare say that the problem is not the theology in and of its self, but rather it is its perceived failure to reflect the objective scientific evidence.” is not an either-or statement. It is both-and.

There is a movement to update the Catholic Church. It is a doctrinal split because the Catholic Church does not change its dogmas found in the Catholic Deposit of Faith to reflect questionable scientific evidence.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[buffalo]

Tonrey, it need not have been one individual who took more than his share of woolly mammoth and condemned half the tribe to starvation. Consciousness of wrongdoing could have been the discovery of the entire evolving hominid community.

“Original sin” refers to the distortion of human nature, the general condition of sinfulness afflicting all humans as we grow into moral consciousness. In that sense the dawning consciousness of sin was inevitable as hominids developed self-awareness and other-awareness in their journey of becoming Homo sapiens.

Except God created Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts that were lost as a consequence of original sin.

 

[grannymh]

Tonrey, it need not have been one individual who took more than his share of woolly mammoth and condemned half the tribe to starvation. Consciousness of wrongdoing could have been the discovery of the entire evolving hominid community.

“Original sin” refers to the distortion of human nature, the general condition of sinfulness afflicting all humans as we grow into moral consciousness. In that sense the dawning consciousness of sin was inevitable as hominids developed self-awareness and other-awareness in their journey of becoming Homo sapiens.

May I respectfully point out the difficulty with this definition.

“Original sin” refers to the distortion of human nature, the general condition of sinfulness afflicting all humans as we grow into moral consciousness. In that sense the dawning consciousness of sin was inevitable as hominids developed self-awareness and other-awareness in their journey of becoming Homo sapiens.

This is not the Catholic definition of Original Sin. It is an example of secular theology which is being offered to Catholics.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

There is one incontestable fact no scientific discovery will ever overturn. At some point in history a person must have realised (for the first time) he or she had done something wrong. It must have been something serious which concerned another person. That was when moral evil appeared in the world. It was the original sin!

This description fits the concept of personal sin. It doesn’t even hint at the Catholic definition of Original Sin.

It is an example of secular theology which is being offered to Catholics as the better way to address the new cultural context. The difficulty with secular theology and the early years of the New Age movement is that both draw on selected truths found in Catholicism. These are the easy truths which float on the surface. True Catholicism answers life’s questions in depth.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55:6-9

 

[StAnastasia]

There is a movement to update the Catholic Church. It is a doctrinal split because the Catholic Church does not change its dogmas found in the Catholic Deposit of Faith to reflect questionable scientific evidence.

It’s questionable only to the scientifically untutored.

 

[StAnastasia]

This description fits the concept of personal sin. It doesn’t even hint at the Catholic definition of Original Sin.

Granny, you have to read with more subtlety. Original Sin is the tendency of all people to sin. It is not the eating of apples.

 

[grannymh]

Back in post 88, I posted this comment: “Otherwise, in my humble opinion, this sounds like a split from the true Catholic Church.” This is StAnastasia’s response from post 91…

Not a split. You should have been at the Pontifical Council for Culture’s Rome conference in 2008. Among the hundreds of theologians, philosophers, historians and scientists present, I heard not a single mention of a literal “Adam” and “Eve.”

The real, two, sole parents of humanity is already a permanent part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Since I do not have a list of those who attended the meeting you speak of, my following comment refers to people in general and not to particular individuals.
There is a doctrinal split from Catholicism being promoted by those who wish to omit any mention of a literal Adam and Eve.

You seem very fond of Matthew Fox, as you mention him more than anyone else I know. I’ve never read his works.

He may have been a minor player in the movement to remove the Catholic dogma of Original Sin. However, as a professor, he influenced many students who in turn influenced others.

I’m promoting responsible theology in light of our world informed by scientific advances in the last 400 years.

In my humble opinion, you are promoting secular theology.

It doesn’t invite opposition. I firmly believe in the friendship of God with humans. This friendship has developed over hundreds of thousands of years, as humans have grown into rationality, self-awareness, moral responsibility, and spiritual consciousness

.

The is the “code” description for human nature minus a spiritual soul.

Good. There is also a difference between mature theology which takes the world – including the science – into account, and a child-like catechism-based theology that refuses to take the first steps into maturity and adulthood.

How does that apply to the Catholic teaching regarding the Garden of Eden account?

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you have to read with more subtlety. Original Sin is the tendency of all people to sin. It is not the eating of apples.

May I respectfully point out that the Catholic definition of Original Sin is not the tendency of all people to sin.

Why is there such a desire to change Catholic dogma regarding Original Sin in the Garden of Eden account?

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Original Sin and Human Nature **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Entering topics is also very useful since the Catechism does expand on the basics and implications. Do check out the Index.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 the following is under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»

 

[StAnastasia]

May I respectfully point out that the Catholic definition of Original Sin is not the tendency of all people to sin.

What do you think it is?

Why is there such a desire to change Catholic dogma regarding Original Sin in the Garden of Eden account?

I like eating apples, and I’ve never met a talking snake.

 

[minkymurph]

I asked my lecturer; a priest who lectures in Theology at the Catholic college I attend a similar question. According to him, the Church has never taught we descended from one human pair, that the Garden of Eden was an actual place, or that the original sin was eating the apple. This is a fundamentalist opinion based on fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Certainly, there are lots of individual Catholics who interpret the Genesis accounts of creation literally. However, the Church does not compel Catholics to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place or Adam and Eve were actual people and all humans descended from them. It is not a Church teaching and it has not been defined so by a Council. It may be the opinion of past Catholic theologians in the absence of the knowledge we have today; but it is nothing more than an opinion.

What Catholics are compelled to believe is the Church’s teaching on Original Sin - that the human race had a relationship with God that went drastically wrong because of an unknown act of disobedience, that God created all things, and that we are God’s special creation being made in his image. The logistics of it all are more important to fundamentalists than Catholics because their faith hinges on literal interpretations of scripture. Ours does not.

 

[davidv]

What do you think it is?

I like eating apples, and I’ve never met a talking snake.

Which bible version are you using the cites either an apple or a snake?

My RSV uses the the terms fruit and serpant respectively.
My online NAB (Biblia Clerus) use fruit and serpant.

What you like is irrelevant to the truth of Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

I asked my lecturer; a priest who lectures in Theology at the Catholic college I attend a similar question. According to him, the Church has never taught we descended from one human pair, that the Garden of Eden was an actual place, or that the original sin was eating the apple. This is a fundamentalist opinion based on fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Certainly, there are lots of individual Catholics who interpret the Genesis accounts of creation literally. However, the Church does not compel Catholics to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place or Adam and Eve were actual people and all humans descended from them. It is not a Church teaching and it has not been defined so by a Council. It may be the opinion of past Catholic theologians in the absence of the knowledge we have today; but it is nothing more than an opinion.

What Catholics are compelled to believe is the Church’s teaching on Original Sin - that the human race had a relationship with God that went drastically wrong because of an unknown act of disobedience, that God created all things, and that we are God’s special creation being made in his image. The logistics of it all are more important to fundamentalists than Catholics because their faith hinges on literal interpretations of scripture. Ours does not.

:banghead:

It is the theologians who are the speculators. Show your lecturere this.

Here is Catholic Dogma:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
   
   and
   1. The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (De fide.)

 

[buffalo]

Which bible version are you using the cites either an apple or a snake?

My RSV uses the the terms fruit and serpant respectively.
My online NAB (Biblia Clerus) use fruit and serpant.

What you like is irrelevant to the truth of Genesis.

Caught her again…:yup: StA is known for these distortions.

 

[grannymh]

I asked my lecturer; a priest who lectures in Theology at the Catholic college I attend a similar question. According to him, the Church has never taught we descended from one human pair, that the Garden of Eden was an actual place, or that the original sin was eating the apple. This is a fundamentalist opinion based on fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Certainly, there are lots of individual Catholics who interpret the Genesis accounts of creation literally. However, the Church does not compel Catholics to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place or Adam and Eve were actual people and all humans descended from them. It is not a Church teaching and it has not been defined so by a Council. It may be the opinion of past Catholic theologians in the absence of the knowledge we have today; but it is nothing more than an opinion.

What Catholics are compelled to believe is the Church’s teaching on Original Sin - that the human race had a relationship with God that went drastically wrong because of an unknown act of disobedience, that God created all things, and that we are God’s special creation being made in his image. The logistics of it all are more important to fundamentalists than Catholics because their faith hinges on literal interpretations of scripture. Ours does not.

The difficulty with what your lecturer has presented is that he did not explain the use of figurative language in Genesis 3. Apparently, this is why he has difficulty with differentiating between opinions and the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

While I do not know your lecturer personally, in general, I do recognize a movement or a split by some theologians who wish to erase certain Catholic dogmas regarding our first parents. Usually the clue is the incomplete understanding of Original Sin such as the above.

The Catholic Faith regarding the Garden of Eden account is presented in the citation in post 109. My suggestion is to read it slowly. It saddens me that the real beauty of our human nature is not being explained adequately.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[StAnastasia]

Which bible version are you using the cites either an apple or a snake?

You say serpent, I say snake!

 

[StAnastasia]

I asked my lecturer; a priest who lectures in Theology at the Catholic college I attend a similar question. According to him, the Church has never taught we descended from one human pair, that the Garden of Eden was an actual place, or that the original sin was eating the apple. This is a fundamentalist opinion based on fundamentalist interpretation of scripture…What Catholics are compelled to believe is the Church’s teaching on Original Sin - that the human race had a relationship with God that went drastically wrong because of an unknown act of disobedience, that God created all things, and that we are God’s special creation being made in his image. The logistics of it all are more important to fundamentalists than Catholics because their faith hinges on literal interpretations of scripture. Ours does not.

Very nicely put, minkymurph!

 

[tonyrey]

There is one incontestable fact no scientific discovery will ever overturn. At some point in history a person must have realised (for the first time) he or she had done something wrong. It must have been something serious which concerned another person. That was when moral evil appeared in the world. It was the original sin!

It isn’t intended to. It is a historical fact that cannot be denied anyone who believes in the reality of evil - unlike myths which convey important truths but when are interpreted literally conflict with scientific discoveries and bring religion into disrepute.

Moreover it is a historical fact that provides a rational, **philosophical **basis for Original Sin because we have inherited the consequences of moral corruption from our ancestors’ choice of evil.

 

[PAboy57]

I think I read somewhere that the more childlike your faith the better your chances are of reaching Heaven. God is almighty and knows everything. If He wants an army destroyed that is His choice. We are not in a position to question His actions. I think He mentioned something similar to Job also.

God Bless.