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

[StAnastasia]

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.

If it is an objective truth, why does it contradict all the genetic evidence?

 

[davidv]

If it is an objective truth, why does it contradict all the genetic evidence?

What genetic evidence is that? I don’t believe you have any. You have hypothesis, theories and computer simulations based on guesses, but you don’t have factual evidence.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Personally, I tend to think The Garden Of Eden (and Adam and Eve) is not to be taken literally as a place, but it probably WAS based on REAL Events and People.

 

[grannymh]

What genetic evidence is that? I don’t believe you have any. You have hypothesis, theories and computer simulations based on guesses, but you don’t have factual evidence.

Out of respect for the ban on evolution discussion, I will not comment.

Out of respect for Catholic teaching, I will say that I am very comfortable with the fact that we all descended from two, sole, parents whatever their names were. The reality of the very first human being and his actions is what is primary. Whether or not there was a precise geographical location for the Garden of Eden is not all that important. God’s creation of the peerless, unique human nature is important. The fact that God called humans to share in His life through knowledge and love is important. The fact that the relationship of the created human with his Creator was dissolved is important. The fact that God, the Creator did not abandon humans is very, very important.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[buffalo]

If it is an objective truth, why does it contradict all the genetic evidence?

The evidence you so believe in built on a foundation of sand.

I have shown you many times the problems with the molecular clock, MtDNA and paternal DNA.

 

[StAnastasia]

What genetic evidence is that? I don’t believe you have any. You have hypothesis, theories and computer simulations based on guesses, but you don’t have factual evidence.

Indeed, we do have evidence. A genetic bottleneck – that is, an episode in which the population of a species is reduced to a small population of individuals as happened with cheetahs – leaves indelible evidence in the genome of that species. There is no evidence in the genome of the human species that our population ever dropped below 3,000 breeding pairs in the last several hundred thousand years.

It certainly never dropped to merely two, which it would have to have done twice on a literal reading of the Bible – once with “Adam and Eve”; a second time with “Noah” and his wife. The minimum breeding population of hominids was several thousand to perhaps 10,000 individuals, to avoid a genetic bottleneck that would have been fatal to the species. Sorry, but that’s the way it was.

StAnastasia

 

[RobbyS]

The evidence you so believe in built on a foundation of sand.

I have shown you many times the problems with the molecular clock, MtDNA and paternal DNA.

We do not --humanly speaking–know the source of the Creation stories. At the same time, we do not know from the “scientific” evidence how man came to be. We must be related to other creatures, but the gap between us and the creatures most like us, is incredibly wide, about as wide as between dead and living things. The appearance of"modern" man keeps getting pushed back in time, so we cannot rule out the possibility that he coexisted along with such beings as Peking Man. For almost two hundred years, men have been trying to prove that humans are simply an advanced ape. But there simply is no conclusive evidence of “almost man.”

 

[StAnastasia]

I will say that I am very comfortable with the fact that we all descended from two, sole, parents whatever their names were.]

Will you try out this theory on geneticists, or is that too threatening? All you need to do is visit a university biology or genetics department – even a Catholic one - and ask them what evidence they can bring to bear supporting your theory of Adam and Eve. I’ll be very interested to hear what you learn from this, Granny!

 

[StAnastasia]

For almost two hundred years, men have been trying to prove that humans are simply an advanced ape. But there simply is not evidence of anything like an “almost man.”

Yes, we have excellent paleontological and genetic evidence supporting human "*********’ (the word we are not allowed to say).
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

[StAnastasia]

The evidence you so believe in built on a foundation of sand.

LOL

I have shown you many times the problems with the molecular clock, MtDNA and paternal DNA.

And your argument has been false every time, and always will be false!

 

[RobbyS]

Will you try out this theory on geneticists, or is that too threatening? All you need to do is visit a university biology or genetics department – even a Catholic one - and ask them what evidence they can bring to bear supporting your theory of Adam and Eve. I’ll be very interested to hear what you learn from this, Granny!

How much does genetics really tell us? Can we expect more exactitude than we find in physics where, finally everything disappears into a cloud of “particles”?

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, we have excellent paleontological and genetic evidence supporting human "*********’ (the word we are not allowed to say).
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

But if you are talking about the actual origin of our species, you are still talking about hypothetical beings. It points at convergence but at an infinite distance, so to speak. Can we say with any exactitude how many generations of modern man have existed?

 

[StAnastasia]

Can we say with any exactitude how many generations of modern man have existed?

No, but that is irrelevant. We know from genetics that there were never only two humans, or two elephants, or two cheetahs, or two penguins.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

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.

My intention wasn’t to produce Catholic teachings but to give a philosophical answer to the OP:

“Is the literal existence of the Garden of Eden a core teaching of the faith? If so, am I to believe that the garden still exists somewhere in Iraq with an angel wielding a flaming sword? That sure is a pretty garden they got there.
I have to say this is one of the reasons I am not a creationist.”

MindOverMatter clearly wanted to know whether “an age of innocence” ever existed or whether it is a fantasy. I’ve pointed out that it cannot be an irrational belief because moral evil hasn’t always existed on this earth. I hope he is reassured that he doesn’t have to be a Creationist in order to be an orthodox Catholic!

I sympathise with your concern for the dilution of the Faith but in our secular society we have to give others a sound intellectual basis for our fundamental beliefs.

 

[grannymh]

My intention wasn’t to produce Catholic teachings but to give a philosophical answer to the OP:

You were a success with your intentions which is why I lamented that “I should have asked for Catholic teaching.” Apparently, the result of my error was a kind of secular philosophy ???. Frankly, the only place I’ve seen those kind of answers are the CAF posts by those who either don’t know about Original Sin or who do not accept Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church.

Regarding the OP’s two questions. Obviously, there is a one-word answer available.

Question one. "Is the literal existence of the Garden of Eden a core teaching of the faith?
Answer. No

Question two. If so, am I to believe that the garden still exists somewhere in Iraq with an angel wielding a flaming sword?
Answer. No.

MindOverMatter clearly wanted to know whether “an age of innocence” ever existed or whether it is a fantasy.

It is possible to describe “an age of innocence” based on Catholic teaching. Why avoid that? By the way, theology concerns the relationship between God the Creator and Adam the created wherever it took place.

I’ve pointed out that it cannot be an irrational belief because moral evil hasn’t always existed on this earth. I hope he is reassured that he doesn’t have to be a Creationist in order to be an orthodox Catholic!

And I hope he understands the cause of moral evil.

I sympathise with your concern for the dilution of the Faith but in our secular society we have to give others a sound intellectual basis for our fundamental beliefs.

It is proper to respect other worldviews. But why should one be hesitant to speak Catholic teaching regarding the beginning of human nature especially when these particular teachings are so logical–at least they are to me. Nonetheless, the bowing to a relativism based secular society has to omit the uncomfortableness of certain truths.

I may be standing alone when I say that a sound intellectual basis does not have to avoid the existence of God. In any case that topic is for another thread, not this one.

Blessings for the new year,
granny

“The soul, the ‘seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material,’ can have its origin only in God.” Paragraph 33, The human person… Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, link to Catechism www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 33

 

[grannymh]

Indeed, we do have evidence. A genetic bottleneck – that is, an episode in which the population of a species is reduced to a small population of individuals as happened with cheetahs – leaves indelible evidence in the genome of that species. There is no evidence in the genome of the human species that our population ever dropped below 3,000 breeding pairs in the last several hundred thousand years.

It certainly never dropped to merely two, which it would have to have done twice on a literal reading of the Bible – once with “Adam and Eve”; a second time with “Noah” and his wife. The minimum breeding population of hominids was several thousand to perhaps 10,000 individuals, to avoid a genetic bottleneck that would have been fatal to the species. Sorry, but that’s the way it was.

StAnastasia

Will you try out this theory on geneticists, or is that too threatening? All you need to do is visit a university biology or genetics department – even a Catholic one - and ask them what evidence they can bring to bear supporting your theory of Adam and Eve. I’ll be very interested to hear what you learn from this, Granny!

Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads is why I do not respond to
your questionable posts. By the way, what you call “your theory of Adam and Eve” is the teaching of the Catholic Church which I am not afraid to proclaim. Scientific intimidation has no effect on my research in the material/physical world.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for eternal life beckons

 

[StAnastasia]

I sympathise with your concern for the dilution of the Faith but in our secular society we have to give others a sound intellectual basis for our fundamental beliefs.

Tonrey, I am perplexed by your lament of the “dilution of the Faith.” In our diocese, we have dynamic liturgies, great preaching, strong episcopal support, vigorous gospel and material outreach to the poor and homeless, great Catholic education, and parish churches brimming with children. The Catholic church is in good shape in our diocese.

What exactly are we missing in your “dilution of the faith” simply because most parishioners don’t accept a literal Garden of Eden, an Adamic pair, a global Noachian flood, a 6.000 year old earth, and a six day creation?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Tonrey, I am perplexed by your lament of the “dilution of the Faith.” In our diocese, we have dynamic liturgies, great preaching, strong episcopal support, vigorous gospel and material outreach to the poor and homeless, great Catholic education, and parish churches brimming with children. The Catholic church is in good shape in our diocese.

What exactly are we missing in your “dilution of the faith” simply because most parishioners don’t accept a literal Garden of Eden, an Adamic pair, a global Noachian flood, a 6.000 year old earth, and a six day creation?

StAnastasia

Since Google shows different sources for “Adamic pair” what specifically are you referring to when you say “most parishioners don’t accept a literal Garden of Eden, an Adamic pair…”

Do the most parishioners, which you mentioned, accept two, real, sole parents of the human species?

Blessings,
granny
:winter:

 

[inocente]

What exactly are we missing in your “dilution of the faith” simply because most parishioners don’t accept a literal Garden of Eden, an Adamic pair, a global Noachian flood, a 6.000 year old earth, and a six day creation?

Oooooh, I’d like to meet them, they sound way cool.

There’s a test I learned, don’t know if it’s popular or not. In your right hand figuratively place your trust in Christ alone, absolutely nothing else. Then in your left place anything else you like – the Bible, dogma, whatever. Now raise each hand according to their relative importance to your faith. Unless your right hand is higher, you got something wrong and need to work it over for fear of making an idol .

Dilution of faith occurs when we get our priorities wrong, not when we use our heads.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonrey, I am perplexed by your lament of the “dilution of the Faith.” In our diocese, we have dynamic liturgies, great preaching, strong episcopal support, vigorous gospel and material outreach to the poor and homeless, great Catholic education, and parish churches brimming with children. The Catholic church is in good shape in our diocese.

What exactly are we missing in your “dilution of the faith” simply because most parishioners don’t accept a literal Garden of Eden, an Adamic pair, a global Noachian flood, a 6.000 year old earth, and a six day creation?

StAnastasia

You misunderstand me. I appreciate granny’s concern for the dilution of faith but I have already made it clear that I don’t consider the literal interpretation of Genesis to be in that category - unlike the doctrine of Original Sin.