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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been at least fifty years of scholarship answering this question! If I referred you to 250 works about it, would you be interested?
From all the works I’ve read, I believe that the current widely-held theory strongly upholds the principle that we are all one unified humanity, with lots of good evidence to boot. Others still ask the question, but it isn’t mine. If I’ve misunderstood the theory then by all means cite some papers.
 
From all the works I’ve read, I believe that the current widely-held theory strongly upholds the principle that we are all one unified humanity, with lots of good evidence to boot. Others still ask the question, but it isn’t mine. If I’ve misunderstood the theory then by all means cite some papers.
We are indeed all one unified humanity, having evolved together since our divergence from the other great apes 5-7 million years ago. There is some evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals mated tens of thousands of years ago, but in any case humans are one species, not two.
 
That’s irrelevant.

Leaving for the remote backwoods – back on Sunday night.

StAnastasia
If you don not know you should know teaching authority in the Church stops at the Bishops. Theologians (speculators) opinions mean nothing.
 
Granny, are you imagining you would do this if you were a religion teacher? What if you were a biology teacher – would you hand students the Catholicism instead of their biology textbooks? That would be illegal in some states.
You forgot to ask where I would be, what month it would be, which day of the week it would be, and what hour of the day it would be.😉
 
MindOverMatter, I don’t believe advancements in scientific knowledge undermine Catholic belief – that is the view of our secular enemies. Theology is a living dialogue between the Christian faith community and the various cultures in which it is embedded. Once it has ceased to be such a living dialogue, theology becomes a dead relic of a once-living tradition. I believe that God as author of the universe would not be at all displeased that rational creatures have evolved in one corner of it and have grown in moral and spiritual awareness and in relationship with God.

The nearly five centuries since Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium have seen a vast sea change in the way humans view their world. instead of the small, young, static and immutable cosmos of the Hebrew Bible, we now inhabit an immense, ancient, dynamic and evolving universe. A theology that rejects what the science has show about the world – and that clings to a literal interpretation of old cosmogonic stories written in a prescientific culture – is a theology doomed to be discarded in the intellectual dustbin.

I have chosen not to throw theology away, and not to make Christians a laughing stock of the educated world. That is why I studied for a doctorate in theology, and why I am spending my career defending the credibility and intelligibility of religious belief in the face of rampant and advancing atheisms of various sorts. Like most other theologians, I regards the story of Adam and Eve as too important to Christian theology to be threatened by an out-dated interpretation that insists on its literal historicity.

StAnastasia
As an exercise in pure MODERNISM it would be hard to find a better example as this above St A. First of all let us see what this condemned by Pope Pius X Modernism is:

‘Modernism, at that time, represented a tendency, a method or process of contemporary thought. As such, it is not confined to religion alone. The name Modernism bears the same relation to what is modern that liberalism bears to what is liberal, or militarism to what is military, or capitalism to capital, and appropriately enough describes the spirit which exalts the modern at the expense of antiquity, which extols the new because it is new, and depreciates the old because it is old, and which so far, is a revolt of the present against the past.
Even when its scope is thus restricted, Modernism is an elusive thing to deal with. For Modernists differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to pin them down to one coherent set of opinions. But the general drift of Modernism in its bearing upon Catholicity is unmistakable. Its object is quite clear, open and avowed. That object is not ostensibly to set up a brand-new form of Catholicity, but to construct it on new lines. Its object, as Modernists are fond of saying, is to readjust Catholicity to the mentality of the age, to reinterpret Catholicity in terms of modern thought.’ — Fr Brampton, SJ: Modernism and Modern Thought, Sands & Co, St Louis, 1913, pp.11-12.
 
But they were not the only human couple alive at the time. Never in the course of *Homo sapiens’ * emergence out of its hominid past did the population fall below 3,000 breeding pairs (that is the low estimate).
Reference your own signature line…

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)

-Tim-
 
But they were not the only human couple alive at the time. Never in the course of *Homo sapiens’ *emergence out of its hominid past did the population fall below 3,000 breeding pairs (that is the low estimate).
Out of respect for the ban in this forum and so that I do not go off topic, I will comment generally to indicate that while the “Garden” can refer to the beautiful, sincere relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature – Adam was the first true, real, fully complete human being. He was not a population.

So far I have not seen any research that researches every foot of planet earth and every happening, every day, going backwards millions of years. In my humble opinion, claiming never regarding the Catholic doctrine of two sole parents of humanity is an exaggeration which defies common sense.

Blessings for the New Year,
granny
 
I will comment generally to indicate that while the “Garden” can refer to the beautiful, sincere relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature – Adam was the first true, real, fully complete human being. He was not a population.
Granny, are you suggesting the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden where Adam and Eve walked around naked talking to snakes? Are you suggesting it was an allegory?
In my humble opinion, claiming never regarding the Catholic doctrine of two sole parents of humanity is an exaggeration which defies common sense.
Granny, if you can find evidence in the human genome to demonstrate that all Homo sapiens have sprung from a single pair, you may win a Nobel Prize.

StAnastasia
 
Reference your own signature line…
“Reference” – is that a verb?
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)
Yes – what about it?
 
Ridiculous.
Is it? As a Catholic am i really free to reject the idea that all human beings have a common “biological” bloodline that is ultimately rooted in Adam and Eve as its first cause? 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?
 
Hey guys. Don’t have much time, but I just want to throw this out there: There is the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve being pre-homo sapien hominids. For more info, check out Dennis Bonnette’s book, Origin of the Human Species. He also has some articles here. Here is a good one. Best.
 
Granny, are you suggesting the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden where Adam and Eve walked around naked talking to snakes? Are you suggesting it was an allegory?
Please tell me which allegory you are referring to. [You have mentioned many in the past.] And since an allegory can include many kinds of symbolisms and/or figurative language, would you be so kind as to elaborate on the meanins(s) of the allegory you are referring to.
Granny, if you can find evidence in the human genome to demonstrate that all Homo sapiens have sprung from a single pair, you may win a Nobel Prize.

StAnastasia
Do you realize that a Nobel Prize is not the goal of a literal or non-literal garden?

Blessings,
granny

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

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.
 
Is it? As a Catholic am i really free to reject the idea that all human beings have a common “biological” bloodline that is ultimately rooted in Adam and Eve as its first cause? 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?
My suggestion is to check the physical evidence somewhere else because of the forum’s ban. You may discover that it is a tempest in a teapot.

I do understand and respect the need for this ban.

Blessings in the new year,
granny

P.S. Catholicism teaches that the nature of our first ancestor united the material and spiritual worlds.
 
Is it? As a Catholic am i really free to reject the idea that all human beings have a common “biological” bloodline that is ultimately rooted in Adam and Eve as its first cause? 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?
As a Catholic you are also free to reject the theory of gravity.
 
Please tell me which allegory you are referring to. And since an allegory can include many kinds of symbolisms and/or figurative language, would you be so kind as to elaborate on the meanins(s) of the allegory you are referring to.
You were the one who seemed to be allegorizing when you wrote (post # 69) “the “Garden” can refer to the beautiful, sincere relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature.”
Do you realize that a Nobel Prize is not the goal of a literal or non-literal garden?
Obviously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top