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

[minkymurph]

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.

I have seen many copies of the Catechism in the college library. I have read exerts from many of them, and there are many I have not read. If one Catechism is better than the other, it casts doubt on the Catechism itself.

I have several copies of the Catechism, hard and soft. I have read many commentaries on the Catechism and there are infinitely more I have not read. I have read many interpretations of the Catechism on this forum.

I have read the Genesis accounts of creation in several translations of the Bible. I have read many Catholic commentaries on the Genesis accounts of creation. I have read Protestant commentaries on Genesis accounts of creation.

I am not saying any of this because I want to sound arrogant, or a know-it-all. I am saying because time and time again on the site people tell me to read something in the hope I will read it and agree with their point of view. It won’t happen. Any more than someone will agree with my point of view because I direct them to a certain book or passage in a certain copy of the catechism or an encyclical.

If the Church does not compel Catholics to believe God created one human pair, then Catholics do not have to believe he did. It is not an article of faith for Catholics and as such, no Catholic has to believe it.

 

[buffalo]

I have seen many copies of the Catechism in the college library. I have read exerts from many of them, and there are many I have not read. If one Catechism is better than the other, it casts doubt on the Catechism itself.

I have several copies of the Catechism, hard and soft. I have read many commentaries on the Catechism and there are infinitely more I have not read. I have read many interpretations of the Catechism on this forum.

I have read the Genesis accounts of creation in several translations of the Bible. I have read many Catholic commentaries on the Genesis accounts of creation. I have read Protestant commentaries on Genesis accounts of creation.

I am not saying any of this because I want to sound arrogant, or a know-it-all. I am saying because time and time again on the site people tell me to read something in the hope I will read it and agree with their point of view. It won’t happen. Any more than someone will agree with my point of view because I direct them to a certain book or passage in a certain copy of the catechism or an encyclical.

If the Church does not compel Catholics to believe God created one human pair, then Catholics do not have to believe he did. It is not an article of faith for Catholics and as such, no Catholic has to believe it.

Then Eve descended for the beasts.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then Eve descended for the beasts.

“For” or “from”? I would say “from.” Same is true of “Adam.”

 

[StAnastasia]

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,

I like that test.

 

[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?

Most members of my parish do not believe that there were only two parents of the human species. Remember, I live in a town with a world-class university, including a renowned biology and genetics faculty. We have many faculty members among our parishioners, highly educated people who work in both the sciences and the humanities.

We even have a priest who teaches at the seminary and publishes regularly in in the field of science and religion – he and I have discussed your theory of “Adam and Eve.” He sees no harm in your believing in it, even if scientifically it is unsubstantiated. The Catholic Church is a big tent, as conflicting conferences in Rome showed last year.

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

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.

I’m sure he will be reassured by that.

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.

It is not possible to know how long the age of innocence lasted nor is it important. What counts is the fact that we were alienated from God and in need of redemption from within the human race. Felix culpa…

And I hope he understands the cause of moral evil.

I’m sure he does!

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 think disagreement on details is far less important than agreement on doctrines!

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.

You are certainly not! Without God no one has a sound intellectual basis for any belief because the power of reason would be a freak of nature and free will would be an illusion…

Blessings for the new year,
granny

And for you…

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Genesis, like the entire Bible, is filled with truth. (Facts are not the only sort of truth.)

 

[buffalo]

Most members of my parish do not believe that there were only two parents of the human species. Remember, I live in a town with a world-class university, including a renowned biology and genetics faculty. We have many faculty members among our parishioners, highly educated people who work in both the sciences and the humanities.

We even have a priest who teaches at the seminary and publishes regularly in in the field of science and religion – he and I have discussed your theory of “Adam and Eve.” He sees no harm in your believing in it, even if scientifically it is unsubstantiated. The Catholic Church is a big tent, as conflicting conferences in Rome showed last year.

StAnastasia

You should be concerned people of such stature have been so indoctrinated. It has affected you for sure.

 

[StAnastasia]

You should be concerned people of such stature have been so indoctrinated. It has affected you for sure.

If by “indoctrinated” you mean “educated,” I’m guilty as charged. So is my pastor and his associate, and most of our congregation. Education can be very contagious – our parish enjoys a lively intellectual and spiritual life, with offerings by priests, theologians, philosophers, and scientists. It has affected me for sure, but so did eleven years of post-graduate training.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Buffalo, I think you’re off the mark here. There is nothing wrong with most forms of evolution, as it can only rightly claim to explain the development of the human body. It does not explain — or, at least, those forms I believe Anastasia trusts — the development of the rational, human, sentient soul. Pope Benedict XVI is quite right to say we are not a meaningless product of evolution, for God is what provides meaning to our lives, and what makes us special is not what evolution could possibly explain.

Science and knowledge are no virtues, no more than hammers or other theologies. Properly, all are tools for understanding God and are wonderful things insofar as they are not used to attack God. Evolution properly understood is not an attack on God.

 

[buffalo]

“Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. …Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29

 

[Sonoran_Son]

“Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. …Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29

This link should be of some interest to those reading that quote:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

 

[minkymurph]

Then Eve descended for the beasts.

Can you elaborate?

 

[buffalo]

This link should be of some interest to those reading that quote:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

And now we should consider the latest: MtDNA can be inherited form the father.

 

[minkymurph]

“Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. …Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29

What is all this about mitochondrial DNA? It is and established scientific fact that mitochondria generates it’s own DNA and mitochondrial DNA is independent of DNA in the sperm and womb that generate the next generation because it carries out a different function; production of other mitochondria which are involved in the Krebs cycle alone and not reproduction.

You either believe the Church’s teaching on original sin, or you do not. I do. However, I don’t see that believing Adam and Eve represent a group of people, one human pair, or the entire human race changes Church teaching on original sin or salvation. They are not compatible with literal interpretations of scripture, but they are all compatible with Catholic dogma. I don’t see how it changes morality, our concept of sexuality, or anything else that has been suggested. The only thing I am aware of that would suggest it is true, it what Pius XII said which has been quoted before. However, Pius XII said that to defend the Church’s teaching against ‘modernism’ and not because he teaching Catholics must believe the human race descended from one human pair. He was not writing on that subject and while he cannot be considered a modernist, he tentatively encouraged historical critical approaches to scripture. This is what he was writing on.

 

[buffalo]

What is all this about mitochondrial DNA? It is and established scientific fact that mitochondria generates it’s own DNA and mitochondrial DNA is independent of DNA in the sperm and womb that generate the next generation because it carries out a different function; production of other mitochondria which are involved in the Krebs cycle alone and not reproduction.

You either believe the Church’s teaching on original sin, or you do not. I do. However, I don’t see that believing Adam and Eve represent a group of people, one human pair, or the entire human race changes Church teaching on original sin or salvation. They are not compatible with literal interpretations of scripture, but they are all compatible with Catholic dogma. I don’t see how it changes morality, our concept of sexuality, or anything else that has been suggested. The only thing I am aware of that would suggest it is true, it what Pius XII said which has been quoted before. However, Pius XII said that to defend the Church’s teaching against ‘modernism’ and not because he teaching Catholics must believe the human race descended from one human pair. He was not writing on that subject and while he cannot be considered a modernist, he tentatively encouraged historical critical approaches to scripture. This is what he was writing on.

The molecular clock ios widely variable and faster than thought a few years ago. It is not an accurate way to determine age.

 

[grannymh]

I have seen many copies of the Catechism in the college library. I have read exerts from many of them, and there are many I have not read. If one Catechism is better than the other, it casts doubt on the Catechism itself.

I have several copies of the Catechism, hard and soft. I have read many commentaries on the Catechism and there are infinitely more I have not read. I have read many interpretations of the Catechism on this forum.

I asked about only one catechism.

Would you please check your supply of catechisms and tell me if you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Since I do not know if Ireland has a second edition, please give me the title page which would indicate that the book is in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

Since this particular book is the current universal catechism, it has appeared in various languages and editions. Thus, it might be simpler if you choose a catechism which has been published after 1980. Please give me the title, publisher and its country, date of publication, and what it says on the book’s title page. Check the contents’ page. This book’s contents are divided into the prologue plus four main parts.

Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17

 

[minkymurph]

The molecular clock ios widely variable and faster than thought a few years ago. It is not an accurate way to determine age.

Well, I am not a big fan of determining molecular age. The reason being, we do not believe what we do for scientific reasons. I do have an interest in the relationship between science and religion. However, we do not believe what we do because it can be proven by science. We believe what we do because we believe we have divinely imparted truths which goes beyond fallible scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is subject to human fallibility. Divinely imparted truths are not subject to that infallibility. That does not mean we can ignore scientific findings but as Catholic, we recognise the limitations of scientific theories. A fallibility those who put their faith in science do not recognise. Who’s to say that in year’s to come another clever scientist may refute everything scientists today believe and provide evidence to support their claim? And thousand’s of years from now, another clever scientist will produce scientific evidence that refutes everything that has been taken as proven?

We do not put our faith in science. It does not mean we ignore it, it means we recognise it for what it is. Meaning, in years to come, what scientists think now could be refuted in light of further evidence/ Therefore, you are absolutely right to challange scientific evidence and we should not accept it as infallible.

I do not claim anything I think now is ‘right’ and cannot be refuted. I am would quite happily change my mind in light of further scientific evidence, and my understanding of scripture in light of further evidence uncovered by historical, literary or redaction criticism. Opinions based on these methods are not infallible and always subject to further understanding in light of further developments and greater understanding.

My point is, I personally don’t see why the belief God only created one human pair or the Garden of Eden was a literal place should be such a sticking point for Catholics. Fundamentalists yes, because of their interpretation of scripture. Let’s say for the sake of argument God did, or didn’t only create one human pair. I don’t see how either belief changes Catholic dogma.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I am not a big fan of determining molecular age. The reason being, we do not believe what we do for scientific reasons. I do have an interest in the relationship between science and religion. However, we do not believe what we do because it can be proven by science. We believe what we do because we believe we have divinely imparted truths which goes beyond fallible scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is subject to human fallibility. Divinely imparted truths are not subject to that infallibility. That does not mean we can ignore scientific findings but as Catholic, we recognise the limitations of scientific theories. A fallibility those who put their faith in science do not recognise. Who’s to say that in year’s to come another clever scientist may refute everything scientists today believe and provide evidence to support their claim? And thousand’s of years from now, another clever scientist will produce scientific evidence that refutes everything that has been taken as proven?

We do not put our faith in science. It does not mean we ignore it, it means we recognise it for what it is. Meaning, in years to come, what scientists think now could be refuted in light of further evidence/ Therefore, you are absolutely right to challange scientific evidence and we should not accept it as infallible.

I do not claim anything I think now is ‘right’ and cannot be refuted. I am would quite happily change my mind in light of further scientific evidence, and my understanding of scripture in light of further evidence uncovered by historical, literary or redaction criticism. Opinions based on these methods are not infallible and always subject to further understanding in light of further developments and greater understanding.

My point is, I personally don’t see why the belief God only created one human pair or the Garden of Eden was a literal place should be such a sticking point for Catholics. Fundamentalists yes, because of their interpretation of scripture. Let’s say for the sake of argument God did, or didn’t only create one human pair. I don’t see how either belief changes Catholic dogma.

Adam and Eve are one of a few attack points materialists use to woo people.

Notice many of the Catholic responses deny Adam and Eve.

 

[minkymurph]

I asked about only one catechism.

Would you please check your supply of catechisms and tell me if you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Since I do not know if Ireland has a second edition, please give me the title page which would indicate that the book is in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

Since this particular book is the current universal catechism, it has appeared in various languages and editions. Thus, it might be simpler if you choose a catechism which has been published after 1980. Please give me the title, publisher and its country, date of publication, and what it says on the book’s title page. Check the contents’ page. This book’s contents are divided into the prologue plus four main parts.

Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17

Fair question. I have three copies of the Catholic Catechism and asking if we have a particular copy in Ireland is also a fair question. I have a complete and unabridged copy published by Veritas in in 1995 which was first published in in 1994 - IBS 1-85390-249-7.
I have a compendium of the Catholic Church published by the Catholic Truth Society in 2006 IBS 1 86082 376 9, and I have a complete and updated Catechism which includes modifications from the Editio Typico published by Doubleday1995 IBSN 0-385-47967-0. In my college there are other editions and commentaries I use for reference such as; NSV Sacramental Dictionary to name but one of many. (I may have got the exact reference wrong 'cos I’m not in the library). I also use many Catholic encyclopedia’s for reference, Jerome’s biblical commentary and various other commentary’s in the library that I can’t name as my memory is not that good. I have also read Thomas Groome, Karl Rahner and Kolberg who are theologians, psychologists, educators and who examine the logistics and process of handing on faith and moral and spiritual development.

My problem with the quoting of Catechism’s, encyclical’s and literature is; it smacks too much of the ideology of ‘Sola Scriptura.’ If we need guidance to read the Bible, we also need guidance in reading the Catechism and encyclicals because the written word lends itself to individuals taking words out of content and using them to support what individuals already think as opposed to understanding the intention of the author. Fundamentalists do not really read scripture. They are brought up with a certain perception of faith and when they come to read the Bible, they look for ‘proof’ of what they already think as opposed to attempting to understand what message the author wanted to communicate. I have a personal opinion, and it is a personal opinion, some people do the same with the Catechism. However, this is by no means a criticism of you as a person. You and everyone else here are entitled to your opinion and a voice on this forum. My objection is people using the Catechism to back up what they already think. It’s not what it was written for.

I would also say the Catechism was not written to back up my opinions. No one has to agree with my interpretations of the Catechism or the bible. What I would say is, I still don’t believe the Catholic Church compels Catholics to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place or that God only created one human pair. I cannot quote you a passage from the bible or the Catechism that confirms beyond any doubt that is the case. Therefore, you are free to disagree. However, I don’t think anyone can quote me a passage from the bible, the Catechism or an encyclical that establishes beyond any doubt Catholics are compelled to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place and God did create only one human pair.