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

[minkymurph]

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.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a materialist?

Adam and Eve may well have been two actual people. We don’t know for sure if they were, or if they were not. It may well be the case Adam and Eve are representative of the whole human race and in addition, were two actual people. The Bible has a pluralistic meaning. Who’s to say if any of us had been Adam and Eve we would not have done the same thing? (whatever that was - an act of disobedience) Can any of us be sure we would certainly have obeyed God had we have been Adam or Eve? It is quite possible Adam and Eve are both metaphorical, and literal.

Why were the Genesis accounts of creation written? To tell us we had a Creator God, we are his special creation made in his image. something went horribly wrong which led to the fall, and God planned to redeem us. Whether they where one human pair and the Garden of Eden is a literal place is incidental; just like Jonah and the Whale. The point of that story is not 'Is it possible for a man to survive in a whale, was Jonah and actual person or did everything happen exactly as the story says. There are many morals to that story concerning our relationship with God. What sort of a fish it was and can God preserve a man in the belly of a whale is not what the story is about. It is about our relationship with God, others, mercy to mention but a few morals. Getting caught up in the whale detracts from the message the author intended to impart.

 

[minkymurph]

I had a thought recently in relation to understanding divinely imparted truths. My eldest son who is 9 loves Scooby Doo. I told him I used to watch Scooby Doo when I was his age. He looked at me and said, ‘How did you watch Scooby Doo when you were my age? You lived in the olden days when there was no electric.’ Do you ever think God looks down on us an smiles when we dispute the theological dotting of ‘i’s’ and crossing of theological ‘t’s?’

My point is, what do we really know? Do we miss out on the message God is trying to impart to us because we are so caught up on the logistics that we miss the point of the truth God wants to impart to us?

How many times did Jesus say to his disciples, ‘Are you getting the sense of it?’

 

[buffalo]

Excuse my ignorance but what is a materialist?

Adam and Eve may well have been two actual people. We don’t know for sure if they were, or if they were not. It may well be the case Adam and Eve are representative of the whole human race and in addition, were two actual people. The Bible has a pluralistic meaning. Who’s to say if any of us had been Adam and Eve we would not have done the same thing? (whatever that was - an act of disobedience) Can any of us be sure we would certainly have obeyed God had we have been Adam or Eve? It is quite possible Adam and Eve are both metaphorical, and literal.

Why were the Genesis accounts of creation written? To tell us we had a Creator God, we are his special creation made in his image. something went horribly wrong which led to the fall, and God planned to redeem us. Whether they where one human pair and the Garden of Eden is a literal place is incidental; just like Jonah and the Whale. The point of that story is not 'Is it possible for a man to survive in a whale, was Jonah and actual person or did everything happen exactly as the story says. There are many morals to that story concerning our relationship with God. What sort of a fish it was and can God preserve a man in the belly of a whale is not what the story is about. It is about our relationship with God, others, mercy to mention but a few morals. Getting caught up in the whale detracts from the message the author intended to impart.

Scripture is like an onion with many layers. Each layer imparts a message. It is cool how God can do that.

**285 **Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

Since humans cannot find the truth by themselves God gave us Revelation to help us discern.

 

[minkymurph]

Scripture is like an onion with many layers. Each layer imparts a message. It is cool how God can do that.

**285 **Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

Since humans cannot find the truth by themselves God gave us Revelation to help us discern.

Yep, go with that. We do not ignore what is human but as you rightly say, what we believe is transcendent. We cannot put our faith in what is solely of human origin. Our faith is in the transcendent which cannot be explained purely by fallible science.

The origins of the human race, being made in the image of God, having an immortal soul and God’s plan of salvation cannot be expressed adequately in human terms. That is why I would say we should not focus on literal interpretations of scripture but rather, the transcendent nature. We don’t ignore the literal but don’t focus on literal interpretations of scripture because there is also a transcendent meaning.

If people choose to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place, I personally don’t have a problem with that. However, that belief will not stand up under scrutiny in light of contemporary thought. That does not mean we must change our beliefs to appease the challanges modern science brings, but we cannot ignore it. When we are presented with challanges we must evaluate them seriously and honestly while holding to what we believe to be true. I think finding that balance is the challange of living our faith today. I would not assert I have found the balance but as Ghandi said, ‘I am open to all but swayed by none.’

 

[edwest2]

Yep, go with that. We do not ignore what is human but as you rightly say, what we believe is transcendent. We cannot put our faith in what is solely of human origin. Our faith is in the transcendent which cannot be explained purely by fallible science.

The origins of the human race, being made in the image of God, having an immortal soul and God’s plan of salvation cannot be expressed adequately in human terms. That is why I would say we should not focus on literal interpretations of scripture but rather, the transcendent nature. We don’t ignore the literal but don’t focus on literal interpretations of scripture because there is also a transcendent meaning.

If people choose to believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place, I personally don’t have a problem with that. However, that belief will not stand up under scrutiny in light of contemporary thought. That does not mean we must change our beliefs to appease the challanges modern science brings, but we cannot ignore it. When we are presented with challanges we must evaluate them seriously and honestly while holding to what we believe to be true. I think finding that balance is the challange of living our faith today. I would not assert I have found the balance but as Ghandi said, ‘I am open to all but swayed by none.’

“in light of contemporary thought”? Like what? Clearly, there are things God, and God alone, can do. That He gave His disciples the power to cast out demons and heal the sick - these are literal things.

That Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers. Ask yourself - did God actually DO anything in the Bible? Or are we free to pick and choose what actually happened according to men?

Honesty must begin in the scientific community which has convinced itself of some things that it cannot demonstrate are true. I have no need for balance against the words of men. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is guarding reason itself today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

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 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.

I Googled ISBN 0-385-47967-0 and it looks like you have the first edition of the Catechism. This is the synopsis. “Here is the first new Catechism of the Catholic Church in more than 400 years, a complete summary of what Catholics believe in common. This book is the catechism that will serve as the standard for all future instruction within the Church.”

It looks like Doubleday printed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, around 2003??. I lost that window and couldn’t get back to verify it. I am awful on the net.

My intention is to share my preference of the Second Edition. Whether or not you believe what you read is your issue.

Your college would have the Second Edition.

The Second Edition is on line www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

On the linked website, before you use the search bar, check out
How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

In the actual Second Edition, I suggest reading the “Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere in which the Latin Typical Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is approved and promulgated.” This is the first page following the Contents’ pages*.* Continue by reading the* “Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum* on the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council”. The Prologue, paragraphs 1-25 should also be read. After that read a section for your enjoyment.

What I finally learned to read was the paragraph numbers in the outside margins. The “Index” and 'Glossary" are great helps. I check footnotes for sources. In the hard copy, there is also an “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865. For some reason this section is not on the link for the catechism. At least I couldn’t find it.

Because I believe that Adam and Eve are real human beings, I often cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Enjoy reading this fascinating book. It may be my age, because I have difficulty understanding some of the paragraphs. However, by rereading and rereading, I am becoming used to the language style which makes reading easier. Also, I read the catechism while I am at my weekly hour of Eucharistic Adoration at 2:00 AM. I like to imagine Jesus giving me hints about this book.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam & Eve, Human Nature and Original Sin
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
»

 

[minkymurph]

“in light of contemporary thought”? Like what?

By ‘in light of contemporary thought’ I mean we know things now that we did not know in the past, and we know things now that had not been revealed to the authors of the Bible at the time of writing. For example; the authors of the Old Testament did not relate the Passover to the Eucharist because the dying and rising of Christ had not happened. The Apostles did not fully understand the Easter event until the Holy Spirit had been poured out and it is more than likely that they did not fully understand Christ was God until Pentecost.

Further to this, we know more now about the Israelites as a nation and how they lived and worshipped in the past which has a bearing on our understanding of the OT.

Further to this, we know more now about the Israelites as a nation and how they lived and worshipped in the past.

Clearly, there are things God, and God alone, can do.

Agreed, nothing in my posts suggested otherwise.

 

[lemondiesel]

I believe the garden of eden symbolizes man’s first cognitive abilities. I mean it had to start somewhere, perhaps long periods of migrations lead to this, i don’t know. I just think the garden of eden, if such a place exists, is important to understanding human history.

Let me also add that I believe the original sin was first ability of using the tongue for speech…leading to persuasion.

 

[minkymurph]

My intention is to share my preference of the Second Edition. Whether or not you believe what you read is your issue.

If I did not believe what I read, it would be my issue. What I don’t believe is if I do understand the words on the page the same way someone else does, I must be wrong. Neither should anyone think they are wrong if their understanding of the words on the page differ from mine. My fundamentalist friend is convinced I would understand scripture so much better if only I used the King James translation and read it ‘properly.’

Your college would have the Second Edition.

Yes, and we also have television in Ireland.
That’s a joke. Believe it or not, someone asked me recently if we had tv in Ireland.

What I finally learned to read was the paragraph numbers in the outside margins. The “Index” and 'Glossary" are great helps. I check footnotes for sources. In the hard copy, there is also an “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865. For some reason this section is not on the link for the catechism. At least I couldn’t find it.

I have to reference the Catechism when I quote it in essays or dissertations so I would know how to reference it. In my college we use the Harvard method. The RS department is pretty sticky on referencing and the lecturers actually do look up your references, (unlike some) to confirm were you obtained the information.

Because I believe that Adam and Eve are real human beings, I often cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Enjoy reading this fascinating book. It may be my age, because I have difficulty understanding some of the paragraphs. However, by rereading and rereading, I am becoming used to the language style which makes reading easier. Also, I read the catechism while I am at my weekly hour of Eucharistic Adoration at 2:00 AM. I like to imagine Jesus giving me hints about this book.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam & Eve, Human Nature and Original Sin
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.

I did not say at any time I did not believe Adam and Eve were real people. I would say that in Adam and Eve are representative of the entire human race in that if any of us had been the first humans created, we would have committed the original sin. However, that is a theory and I’m quite happy to say so. What I think is possible, as again it is a theory, God created more than two individuals who all committed the original sin, whatever it was.
As what I have stated is theory, no one else is under any compulsion to agree.

It’s highly unlikely I will read what you have suggested at the moment as I have a mountain of reading to do for college, two young kids, two geriatric dogs and another child I call ‘the husband’ to look after, and ‘was the Garden of Eden a literal place,’ or did God initially create more than two humans with respect, really isn’t high on my list of priorities at the moment. If someone else believes God created one human pair only, fine. I would still say the Church does not compel Catholics to believe God initially created one man and one woman, or that the Garden of Eden was a literal place.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, and we also have television in Ireland.
That’s a joke. Believe it or not, someone asked me recently if we had tv in Ireland.

And do you have highway numbers? That isn’t a joke. Ages ago, I drove from Dublin to Shannon via Galway using towns as a guide. The highway from Shannon had been started but had not gotten very far. Being directionally challenged, I had to stop often to make sure I was headed west. Thus, I got to know the Irish on a personal basis.

I will get back to your post, but I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your country and people.

Blessings,
granny

:shamrock2:

 

[grannymh]

I believe the garden of eden symbolizes man’s first cognitive abilities. I mean it had to start somewhere, perhaps long periods of migrations lead to this, i don’t know. I just think the garden of eden, if such a place exists, is important to understanding human history.

Let me also add that I believe the original sin was first ability of using the tongue for speech…leading to persuasion.

While I doubt if we will agree on a lot of things regarding the Garden of Eden, I appreciate your comment about man’s cognitive abilities. Sometimes I enjoy stepping back from the religious aspects of Eden to see what is underneath. The writer’s recognition of human intellect was one of the first things I spotted. Putting aside original sin, I see the speech(s) as indication of human’s rational powers and the ability to make choices beyond natural instinct and sentience.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

 

[minkymurph]

And do you have highway numbers? That isn’t a joke. Ages ago, I drove from Dublin to Shannon via Galway using towns as a guide. The highway from Shannon had been started but had not gotten very far. Being directionally challenged, I had to stop often to make sure I was headed west. Thus, I got to know the Irish on a personal basis.

I will get back to your post, but I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your country and people.

Blessings,
granny

:shamrock2:

You’ve got me there! We don’t even have highways! We have about 8 'motorways which are numbered. They have four lanes and a higher speed limit. I have driven to Dublin several times and I don’t think I’ve ever come home the same way twice.

I can remember driving through Slane on a motor bike and there were more potholes than road. We saw a sign saying something like ‘Dublin 40.’ Ten minutes down the road we saw a sign saying ‘Dublin 49’ and it was impossible to tell which way the sign was pointing.

All part of the rich tapestry of life.

 

[grannymh]

All part of the rich tapestry of life.

I agree about the rich tapestry of life…

Brief comment about the “Index of Citations” which is in the hard copy of the catechism. I have used it in reverse. What it does is to list all the sources used throughout the catechism. For example, when someone says something is in *Generis, *I go to Generis in the Index, which lists the verses quoted in the catechism and which paragraph they are in. Then I check the paragraph to see how the particular verse is being used.

Most of the catechism’s footnotes are pretty clear; however, some are in some kind of abbreviation. Humani Generis is one of them. So when asked about Humani Generis, I started by checking documents in the “Index of Citations” and found the catechism paragraph which did use a particular section from Humani Generis. Hopefully, this makes sense. Otherwise, ask questions.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

If I did not believe what I read, it would be my issue. What I don’t believe is if I do understand the words on the page the same way someone else does, I must be wrong. Neither should anyone think they are wrong if their understanding of the words on the page differ from mine. My fundamentalist friend is convinced I would understand scripture so much better if only I used the King James translation and read it ‘properly.’

It is good to finally sit down and share some of my observations with you. One of the things I have observed is that a lot of people are either-or people. It’s the attitude --I’m think I’m right; therefore, the other person must be wrong. You sound more like a both-and person in that there can be different ways that people understand what they read.

I was taught that the Bible was the Living Word of God. We were encouraged to take a familiar passage and let it inspire our imagination. It was like a prayer experience of God talking with us. The key was that we never changed the basic truth. There have been a few times when I have been with a small group and we would share our thoughts about something we read, either from Scripture or some inspirational writing. We learned from each other. When we disagreed on a major point, we simple asked our pastor what was the actual church teaching. It was never a contest to see who was right and who was wrong.

I did not say at any time I did not believe Adam and Eve were real people. I would say that in Adam and Eve are representative of the entire human race in that if any of us had been the first humans created, we would have committed the original sin. However, that is a theory and I’m quite happy to say so. What I think is possible, as again it is a theory, God created more than two individuals who all committed the original sin, whatever it was.

Regarding original sin – “whatever it was” is common on CAF. Personally, I was amazed at how many Catholics do not understand original sin. What is worse, in my opinion, is the wrong explanations of original sin. Then, when I started checking the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition – it was Ooops, here is some stuff I have never heard of. I had to read and reread…

What has happened is that there have been prominent Catholic theologians who have either denied original sin itself or have watered the doctrine down to a small puddle. Before they were censured, they did a lot of damage in the intellectual community. In order for original sin to be reduced to a symbol of some kind of bad thing, Adam and Eve also had to become symbols. It was when Adam and Eve were being attacked on CAF, that I started studying the origin of the human species. My plan this spring is to audit an anthropology course provided I can get in.

It’s highly unlikely I will read what you have suggested at the moment as I have a mountain of reading to do for college, two young kids, two geriatric dogs and another child I call ‘the husband’ to look after, and ‘was the Garden of Eden a literal place,’ or did God initially create more than two humans with respect, really isn’t high on my list of priorities at the moment.

Congratulations on going to college. Keep to your priorities including practicing Catholicism. Put a bookmark in the catechism. You’ll know when you should read a paragraph or two. When I was in college and had difficult texts to read, I would read a novel at the same time for balance. This time around, if I get into the anthropology course, I am going to finish reading Harry Potter. I don’t mean to imply that the catechism is fiction. But it would be a change of pace without a paper to write or an exam to take.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, is based on the Church’s teachings from day one. This means one has to go to the footnotes. Many footnotes show that a particular catechism teaching is straight from Scripture. As you know, in the early church there were a number of opposite opinions which were decided in Church Councils, so these appear in the footnotes as well as writings of the early Church Fathers, saints and popes etc. There is a list of abbreviations somewhere in the back of the book. Denszinger-Schonmetzer is a source for citations.

I have a 975 page book which has the context or an expanded text for sources listed in the footnotes. It is
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

It looks like the Council of Trent dealt with Original Sin as belonging to one man and that the contracted state becomes ours through the transmission of human nature from the first man.

In my opinion, Adam and Original Sin belongs in its own thread. However, the threads I’ve seen on this topic are confusing and don’t seem to get to the depth of the subject. Posts seem to get off base because many people don’t realize that the Catholic teaching on original sin and human nature is way different than some of the other Christians religions. Personally, I think the Catholic version is logical.

If I have not responded to all your concerns, please let me know. Love God with all your soul and actions.

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist Is
The Light, Strength, And Life Of Our Souls.

 

[inocente]

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.

There’s yet another way to look at this, sorry if anyone has brought it up before.

Ever hiked out along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon until you’re by yourself for a few hours? You hear the sounds of that world one mile below and see the shadows move with the Sun, and know that a Native American sat in the same place and called all this sacred, and eagles fly across it and are at home.

Bit poetic, but just maybe you get the crazy idea we’re still physically in the Garden but banish ourselves inside our heads.

(Note - this doesn’t necessarily apply to Cleveland or Bilbao ).

 

[grannymh]

There’s yet another way to look at this, sorry if anyone has brought it up before.

Ever hiked out along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon until you’re by yourself for a few hours? You hear the sounds of that world one mile below and see the shadows move with the Sun, and know that a Native American sat in the same place and called all this sacred, and eagles fly across it and are at home.

Bit poetic, but just maybe you get the crazy idea we’re still physically in the Garden but banish ourselves inside our heads.

(Note - this doesn’t necessarily apply to Cleveland or Bilbao ).

When I am in the Alaskan mountains, I have similar thoughts. However, I would say that we changed from the time of the Garden. Which is why I think that the sacred purpose of the Garden of Eden is more important that literal or symbolic words.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

 

[minkymurph]

When I am in the Alaskan mountains, I have similar thoughts. However, I would say that we changed from the time of the Garden. Which is why I think that the sacred purpose of the Garden of Eden is more important that literal or symbolic words.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

That’s really were I was coming from in my posts. The Sacred meaning is more important than the logistics. It’s like the story of Jonah. There are so many deep meanings to the story of Jonah which the author communicates in beautiful, ancient literary style. Getting into a 'did Jonah really survive in the belly of big fish, is this scientifically possible and what sort of fish was it spoils the whole thing and detracts from the divine truths being communicated. That’s why I don’t get hung up on such details.

 

[minkymurph]

There’s yet another way to look at this, sorry if anyone has brought it up before.

Ever hiked out along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon until you’re by yourself for a few hours? You hear the sounds of that world one mile below and see the shadows move with the Sun, and know that a Native American sat in the same place and called all this sacred, and eagles fly across it and are at home.

Bit poetic, but just maybe you get the crazy idea we’re still physically in the Garden but banish ourselves inside our heads.

(Note - this doesn’t necessarily apply to Cleveland or Bilbao ).

Well let’s be honest. Religion is a bit crazy which is why I like it so much!

It gives you the licence to go places mathematicians couldn’t dream of.

I sometimes get this crazy idea we are kind of in heaven but from the fall, can’t physically experience it. There are those times we get a sense of it in life. Mind you, sometimes I feel I got a sense of that other place and think I’m in it.

 

[minkymurph]

It is good to finally sit down and share some of my observations with you. One of the things I have observed is that a lot of people are either-or people. It’s the attitude --I’m think I’m right; therefore, the other person must be wrong. You sound more like a both-and person in that there can be different ways that people understand what they read.

I would be ‘both and’ person when both and is acceptable. What I am not is an ‘I’m right’ person. One of the problems with religion is that it is taught from an ‘I’m right’ perspective.
I’ve always seen a difference between being right and believing something is true. I remember when I was thinking of becoming Catholic, the priest who catechised me said, ‘it’s not about being right, it about do you want to be Catholic?’ I don’t feel being Catholic means I must always be right.

I was taught that the Bible was the Living Word of God. We were encouraged to take a familiar passage and let it inspire our imagination. It was like a prayer experience of God talking with us. The key was that we never changed the basic truth. There have been a few times when I have been with a small group and we would share our thoughts about something we read, either from Scripture or some inspirational writing. We learned from each other. When we disagreed on a major point, we simple asked our pastor what was the actual church teaching. It was never a contest to see who was right and who was wrong.

I was taught the Bible is inspired and there are different understandings of what the term ‘inspiration’ means. Each year in college we take a module of Catholic exegesis. In first year we looked at the Genesis accounts of creation, The flood, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel and Amos. In second year we looked at Matthew. The text book we used was ‘Lifting the Burden by Brendan Byrne.’ You can read some of it on-line on google books.

What has happened is that there have been prominent Catholic theologians who have either denied original sin itself or have watered the doctrine down to a small puddle. Before they were censured, they did a lot of damage in the intellectual community. In order for original sin to be reduced to a symbol of some kind of bad thing, Adam and Eve also had to become symbols.

I’ve never actually heard that before. I don’t know how a Catholic theologian could deny original sin.

Congratulations on going to college. Keep to your priorities including practicing Catholicism. Put a bookmark in the catechism. You’ll know when you should read a paragraph or two.

To be honest I don’t read the Catechism as such. I use it as a reference book. I do read commentaries relating to sections of the Catechism.

It looks like the Council of Trent dealt with Original Sin as belonging to one man and that the contracted state becomes ours through the transmission of human nature from the first man.

No dispute with that. I don’t see how not thinking the Garden of Eden was a literal place would alter that teaching. Or being of the opinion that God created more than one human pair. The first Genesis account says he created ‘man’ and the Hebrew word it is translated from means ‘man’ plural and includes women. The second account speaks of Adam and Eve. Original sin is another story again. It’s about the Fall and not creation.

In my opinion, Adam and Original Sin belongs in its own thread. However, the threads I’ve seen on this topic are confusing and don’t seem to get to the depth of the subject. Posts seem to get off base because many people don’t realize that the Catholic teaching on original sin and human nature is way different than some of the other Christians religions. Personally, I think the Catholic version is logical.

I would say it does to. However the original poster asked about the Garden of Eden. The straightforward answer is no, you don’t have to believe the Garden Of Eden was a literal place. I don’t have the imagination for God making humans like my kids make play-doh men and talking snakes. We don’t know how God actually made humans and to be honest, I don’t really care how he did it. I just believe He did. I don’t know what the original sin was, but I believe an original sin was committed and is passed on. As Oscar Wilde said, ‘the plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple.’

On your last point, I have to disagree. There is nothing logical about religion, and that’s what I like about it. I love being different and weird and religion lets me.

 

[minkymurph]

If I were a teacher, I would hand my students the *Catechism *section which deals with Adam and human nature and tell them to find their own compelling reason. I am not a teacher, but I will give you the Catechism section just to see what you come up. Take your time with this section. I have been working for a long time on this section and I still find new insights when I open it.

Just been going back over the posts and would like to answer you here. I’m training to be a Post primary teacher (11-18) and my main subject is Religious Studies. Obviously reading the Catechism is something you enjoy and you feel you gain greater understanding from it. That does not follow for everyone.

I have taught 12 year old’s that can barely read and write and are of low ability. I have also taught children with learning difficulties such as; autism and dyslexia and children who can’t speak English. Unless you can speak their language, you have to teach them with pictures. Yes, you could get a catechism in their language, but if I gave the kids I teach a section of the catechism to read, they would be ‘sick’ every time they had a class with me! Kids today are also visual learners; particularly those with special needs.

To sum up, you would have to use a kiddy catechism but to honest, the wouldn’t be very excited about it and bored kids misbehave.