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

[grannymh]

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.

According to Catholic teaching as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421-- it is a historical fact that the first human known as Adam committed a personal sin.

So what is the important truth which you are referring to? And does this truth need a specific geographical location of a named garden?

What actually is a rational, philosophical basis for Original Sin? (I am curious if you will come up with a rational basis similar to the ones I observe.)

And what actually are the consequences of moral corruption from our ancestors’ choice of evil. I do realize that there are differences between the teachings of some Protestant religions and Catholicism. If you wish, you can reply with either teaching or both. Just be sure to designate which religion you are using.

Furthermore, I would like you to name and/or explain the “something wrong” that must have been something serious which concerned another person which you mentioned in post 99 above.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

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.

This reminds me of the humility we should have since we are the created ones and not the Creator.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[StAnastasia]

it is a historical fact that the first human known as Adam committed a personal sin.

Granny, in what way is it a historical fact if there is no conceivable way to test it historically? It can be a pious claim, but if you cant test it how is it a fact?

 

[tonyrey]

It isn’t intended to. It is a historical fact

Which is precisely the point I have made - apart from the name conferred on him by the authors of Genesis.

So what is the important truth which you are referring to?

The choice of evil, the precise nature of which is unknown.

And does this truth need a specific geographical location of a named garden?

It must have occurred in a specific location which is speculative.

What actually is a rational, philosophical basis for Original Sin? (I am curious if you will come up with a rational basis similar to the ones I observe.)
And what actually are the consequences of moral corruption from our ancestors’ choice of evil. I do realize that there are differences between the teachings of some Protestant religions and Catholicism. If you wish, you can reply with either teaching or both. Just be sure to designate which religion you are using.

This is a philosophy not a theology forum. It is sufficient to note that the choice of evil by one person has had negative effects on all subsequent generations. We are all born into a morally decadent society in which indifference and hostility often prevail over fraternity and love.

Furthermore, I would like you to name and/or explain the “something wrong” that must have been something serious which concerned another person which you mentioned in post 99 above.

No one knows for certain the precise nature of the first sin. It is certainly off the topic of the Garden of Eden. The fact that it occurred is enough to justify belief in the need for redemption by the Son of God.

 

[tonyrey]

Granny, in what way is it a historical fact if there is no conceivable way to test it historically? It can be a pious claim, but if you cant test it how is it a fact?

If you believe in the reality of moral evil in human society it must have originated at a specific moment in time.

 

[StAnastasia]

No one knows for certain the precise nature of the first sin. It is certainly off the topic of the Garden of Eden. The fact that it occurred is enough to justify belief in the need for redemption by the Son of God.

Tonrey, what is your evidence that (1) it really occurred, but (2) it didn’t necessarily involve snakes and forbidden fruit? Are you being a bit loose here?

 

[minkymurph]

: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.)

1. 
   I don’t dispute theologians speculate. That’s what they are supposed to do. They don’t declare dogma. There’s nothing wrong with speculation, so long as you state is it speculative and not Catholic Dogma.
   
   I could show what you’ve written to my lecturer, but I know what he would say.
   ‘You do realise when you post on the Internet you know nothing about the person you are communicating with.’
   
   The only thing you have said I could disagree with in your post is; the whole human race stems from one single pair. I don’t disagree with anything else you have said in your post.
   
   You cite ‘Sent Certa’ in your post. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, this is an encyclical. I have never read it and therefore cannot comment. I will ask my lecturer about it as their is a very good chance he has read it, and may not interpret it the same way you do. The number of interpretations I have seen on these forums of Papal documents and the Catechism. How can we be sure who’s interpretation of the Catechism of Papal document is a true reflection of the author’s intention. It’s almost like having a Protestant religion; numerous interpretations of the bible, within Catholicism.
   
   However being charitable, I will search out said document. Read, reflect and discuss.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you believe in the reality of moral evil in human society it must have originated at a specific moment in time.

Why? I believe in the reality of gravity, but not that gravity had to begin working at a particular place and a particular time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Very interesting. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t dispute theologians speculate. That’s what they are supposed to do. They don’t declare dogma. There’s nothing wrong with speculation, so long as you state is it speculative and not Catholic Dogma.

I could show what you’ve written to my lecturer, but I know what he would say.
‘You do realise when you post on the Internet you know nothing about the person you are communicating with.’

The only thing you have said I could disagree with in your post is; the whole human race stems from one single pair. I don’t disagree with anything else you have said in your post.

You cite ‘Sent Certa’ in your post. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, this is an encyclical. I have never read it and therefore cannot comment. I will ask my lecturer about it as their is a very good chance he has read it, and may not interpret it the same way you do. The number of interpretations I have seen on these forums of Papal documents and the Catechism. How can we be sure who’s interpretation of the Catechism of Papal document is a true reflection of the author’s intention. It’s almost like having a Protestant religion; numerous interpretations of the bible, within Catholicism.

However being charitable, I will search out said document. Read, reflect and discuss.

The question to ask is - what has the Church continuously understood and taught?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

*] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Interesting.

Why does it change from “defide” to “sent.certa?”
What do these terms imply?

Perhaps you will explain this for us.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

Well, he actually did explain explained figurative language extensively. I quoted one thing he said in an hour long lecture about the Genesis account in response to a question I asked him. I’m sure you don’t want the whole lecture.

The module I am currently studying is our human nature and sexual morality. Be assured that both the lecturers who take the module will cover the topic in depth. I am not aware of any split among theologians. Perhaps someone else here may enlighten me. I don’t know any theologians or Catholic Bible Scholars who believe the Genesis accounts of creation are literal. The only people I know of who believe the Genesis accounts of creation are to be read literally are fundamentalists.

I don’t see why you need to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place, or the entire human race came from one human pair in order to understand the beauty of human nature. I don’t see why you have to believe it to be Catholic, to believe the Church’s teaching on original sin or God’s plan of salvation. If someone else believes there was one human pair, fair enough. I don’t see it as a big deal. If someone was to say they didn’t believe in transubstantiation, or that Jesus was the Incarnate God, that would be an issue if they professed to be Catholic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

I don’t think this is intended to mean that we should be naive like children. Other parts of scripture says that we should test the faith.

 

[minkymurph]

The question to ask is - what has the Church continuously understood and taught?

Well I’m certainly not an expert myself concerning Church teaching and interpretation of the Genesis accounts. That’s why I asked my lecturer the question I did which was, ‘Does the Catholic Church teach the human race came from one human pair?’ His answer was the Church has never taught the entire human race came from one human pair, and that that opinion is based on a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

 

[buffalo]

Interesting.

Why does it change from “defide” to “sent.certa?”
What do these terms imply?

Perhaps you will explain this for us.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

by Dr. Ludwig Ott

INTRODUCTION

De fide = Of the faith, official dogma

The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

Sent. certa = always been held to be true; official doctrine but at a lower level than dogma

A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

De fide = Of the faith, official dogma
Sent. certa = always been held to be true; official doctrine but at a lower level than dogma

Very interesting. That would mean the belief that the entire human race originated in two persons alone, is actually not official dogma; but rather a highly respected belief so much so that it is regarded as “official doctrine”.

It seems to me that if the scientific evidence did favour against official doctrine, then the church should have no problem with admitting, given further knowledge they did not have before, that they could conceivably change said doctrine; that is to say that this particular doctrine is relatively true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, rather than absolutely and necessarily true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

[grannymh]

Which is precisely the point I have made - apart from the name conferred on him by the authors of Genesis.
The choice of evil, the precise nature of which is unknown.
It must have occurred in a specific location which is speculative.
This is a philosophy not a theology forum. It is sufficient to note that the choice of evil by one person has had negative effects on all subsequent generations. We are all born into a morally decadent society in which indifference and hostility often prevail over fraternity and love.
No one knows for certain the precise nature of the first sin. It is certainly off the topic of the Garden of Eden. The fact that it occurred is enough to justify belief in the need for redemption by the Son of God.

My error. I should have asked for the Catholic teaching. However, not all is lost. This is a good example of the doctrinal split leading away from Catholicism into a popular type of secular theology. As I think about this, I am trying to remember another name for this type of theology. No matter. The common denominator – so far – is that my questions, similar to what I have asked here, do not produce Catholic teachings.

A sincere thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

By the way, since God is involved (at least in Catholic teaching) with the creation of the first human nature, Catholic theology is definitely appropriate to the topic of the Garden of Eden.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1

 

[buffalo]

Very interesting. That would mean the belief that the entire human race originated in two persons alone, is actually not official dogma; but rather a highly respected belief so much so that it is regarded as “official doctrine”.

It seems to me that if the scientific evidence did favour against official doctrine, then the church should have no problem with admitting, given further knowledge they did not have before, that they could conceivably change said doctrine; that is to say that this particular doctrine is relatively true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, rather than absolutely and necessarily true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Doctrine are promoted to infallible dogma. They are not overturned.

Maybe this will help. Dogma

 

[grannymh]

Very interesting. That would mean the belief that the entire human race originated in two persons alone, is actually not official dogma; but rather a highly respected belief so much so that it is regarded as “official doctrine”.

It seems to me that if the scientific evidence did favour against official doctrine, then the church should have no problem with admitting, given further knowledge they did not have before, that they could conceivably change said doctrine; that is to say that this particular doctrine is relatively true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, rather than absolutely and necessarily true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

It is not good logic to use scientific evidence as an universal, when individual research does not warrant it. Furthermore, the sole parents of the human species is an objective truth which does not depend on someone’s version of “relatively true” regarding Divine Revelation. And no – I am not interested in debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Blessings,
granny

:winter:

 

[grannymh]

Well I’m certainly not an expert myself concerning Church teaching and interpretation of the Genesis accounts. That’s why I asked my lecturer the question I did which was, ‘Does the Catholic Church teach the human race came from one human pair?’ His answer was the Church has never taught the entire human race came from one human pair, and that that opinion is based on a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Have you seen the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 ? Currently, my recommendation is to use the hard copy
edition rather than the on-line edition. The book I have includes an “Index of Citations” following paragraph 2865. So I was able to determine that teachings regarding Adam were referenced at the Council of Trent, 1545-1563 along with earlier Councils and modern Popes, such as Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for Catholic truth is rewarding.