Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world with no death prior to the alleged fall?

[Peace]

On 12/4/2015, 11:55:07, Josh said:

I don't see how an intelligent person denies evolution in 2015.

Do you actually understand evolution? Have you studied heredity, gene mutation, gene flow, and so forth? The science of evolution is extremely complex. You have to study for years and years just to get a basic understanding of it.

Most people who believe in evolution know extremely little about it - including myself. I believe that it it is the commonly accepted theory in the scientific community. But my belief that evolution is true is an act of faith. It has very little to do with my own intelligence or knowledge.

What you are saying, essentially, I think, is that "I cannot see how any person cannot accept the current scientific consensus". But we have seen many times in history where the current scientific consensus has proved to be wrong, based on better science.

So I would not go around trying to claim any kind of intellectual high ground unless you have actually spent 4 or 6 years studying evolutionary biology yourself and have a good understanding of it yourself. Some people put their faith in the Bible. Other people put their faith in scientists who are more knowledgeable than they are. Most people who claim that they believe evolution to be true are also making an act of faith, because very few people truly understand the science behind it.

On 12/4/2015, 10:37:46, MarysLittleFlower said:

It's doctrine, so yes. We are obligated to believe in a real Adam and Eve.

I did not know that this was dogma. Can you point to where that is - the section of the Catechism for example?

On 12/4/2015, 2:21:00, Josh said:

Reality isn't a 6000 y/o earth created by an old Caucasian white haired bearded God. Yet many Christians believe this to be "reality".

The Earth sure could have been created 6000 years ago. I don't believe that it was - but I think that any person who believes in the Christian God has to be at least open to that possibility.

Sure, our scientific observations tell us that the universe was created much longer than that ago - but is God not capable of creating something today, that when measured scientifically, appears much older than it is? Of course, because God can do anything. So I don't think you can call people who believe that crazy. I think they take an overly-literal approach to the Bible, which leads them to wrong conclusions, but a 6000 year old Earth is certainly possible.

Hopefully one day we will get to Heaven and get to ask God for the answer.

[Benedictus]

On 04/12/2015, 15:35:12, Josh said:

Yes? No? Unsure?

Genesis is written to be figurative and symbolic, for the most part. But it also illustrates and affirms a primeval event. The Church is clear on both accounts. The church isn't fundamentalist in its approach to the story, but it affirms the truths within as having historicity in as much as they do convey the first essence of relationship that emerged between God and man.

The theological discourse on the subject isn't straightforward.

[PhuturePriest]

On 12/6/2015, 11:21:18, chrysostom said:

Is the earth 6000 years old?  I can walk outside and if the sky is in the right condition I can see the Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, something like 2.5 million light years away.  With a good amateur telescope I could spot quasar 3C 273 which is over 2 billion light years away.

The nature of things - the way in which stars, trees, bacteria, etc, grow from the dead remnants of their kind - indicates that mortality is built in to nature.

Nevertheless I believe it is theologically important to hold that there was a real Adam and Eve - and that had they not made the choice to sin they would not have died.  I don't know what path nature would have taken at that point.  C.S. Lewis meditates on the consequences of that in Perelandra.  It's an interesting take.  Genetic or pathological connections between humans and other animals don't bother me.  However it happened, it happened.  

What I was taught is that the forbidden fruit was a test, and had Adam and Eve passed they would have been taken immediately into heaven with no offspring. That is why at the Easter Vigil Mass we recite a prayer which says "Oh happy fault" (referring to the fall,) or something to that effect.

[Benedictus]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Do you actually understand evolution? Have you studied heredity, gene mutation, gene flow, and so forth? The science of evolution is extremely complex. You have to study for years and years just to get a basic understanding of it.

Most people who believe in evolution know extremely little about it - including myself. I believe that it it is the commonly accepted theory in the scientific community. But my belief that evolution is true is an act of faith. It has very little to do with my own intelligence or knowledge.

What you are saying, essentially, I think, is that "I cannot see how any person cannot accept the current scientific consensus". But we have seen many times in history where the current scientific consensus has proved to be wrong, based on better science.

So I would not go around trying to claim any kind of intellectual high ground unless you have actually spent 4 or 6 years studying evolutionary biology yourself and have a good understanding of it yourself. Some people put their faith in the Bible. Other people put their faith in scientists who are more knowledgeable than they are. Most people who claim that they believe evolution to be true are also making an act of faith, because very few people truly understand the science behind it..

Each person doesn't need to get a degree or PHD in a subject before they can draw relatively rational and educated conclusions. The basic concepts of evolution can be grasped fairly quickly and there's no need to do extensive research on it. There's always an element of managing risk, as with everything, but we all go to specialists and professionals who have expertise in an area and can advise on a particular subject.

Most Catholic don't have 4 to 6 years of specialist theology and philosophy training. That doesn't prevent an individual Catholic drawing conclusions on those matters because they trust the deposit of knowledge, faith, life and study done by others in the Church. If we all needed to each study those areas in depth before making claims then most of the people here wouldn't be able to comment on matters of theology or philosophy!

Faith is about what we do, not what we manifest in our heads. Faith, too often, is seen as passive. I don't have faith God exists because I already have a relationship with him. Faith, as far as I understand it so far, is about whether I have enough faith in the relationship to go and do what God wants and to become what he asks of me. It's more about the process of growth and freedom than about ideas or grand concepts.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

The Earth sure could have been created 6000 years ago. I don't believe that it was - but I think that any person who believes in the Christian God has to be at least open to that possibility.

Sure, our scientific observations tell us that the universe was created much longer than that ago - but is God not capable of creating something today, that when measured scientifically, appears much older than it is? Of course, because God can do anything. So I don't think you can call people who believe that crazy. I think they take an overly-literal approach to the Bible, which leads them to wrong conclusions, but a 6000 year old Earth is certainly possible.

Hopefully one day we will get to Heaven and get to ask God for the answer.

Some things are more trustworthy than others. An open mind is good, but not so open our brains fall out. The view of a young earth was advanced by people, especially protestant fundamentalists and literalists, as a push back against the enlightenment and in an effort to view the Bible as a linear historical document. It's a fallacy from the start and doesn't do justice to how ancient societies intended texts and how they viewed matters of historicity (very different to us). These religious groups ignore, or are ignorant about, large areas of academic consensus, which is ironic considering they usually claim to take the Bible seriously.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Each person doesn't need to get a degree or PHD in a subject before they can draw relatively rational and educated conclusions. The basic concepts of evolution can be grasped fairly quickly and there's no need to do extensive research on it.

I do not think that they are easily grasped, and I think that I am intelligent enough. It is not as though one can look at any living creature today and see clear evidence that it has evolved. You do not see evidence for evolution in the same way that you see evidence for gravity, for example.

And whether people can do it is rather beside the point, I think. The question is whether people have done it. How many people have spent a paltry 20 hours of their life studying the basic concepts of evolution? Very few.

Quote

Most Catholic don't have 4 to 6 years of specialist theology and philosophy training. That doesn't prevent an individual Catholic drawing conclusions on those matters because they trust the deposit of knowledge, faith, life and study done by others in the Church. If we all needed to each study those areas in depth before making claims then most of the people here wouldn't be able to comment on matters of theology or philosophy!

Most Catholics have (or should have) undergone some form of formal catecheseis. I went through a 9 month long RCIA program, and that barely touched the surface. How many people have taken even 1 basic college level course on evolution? When we draw conclusions we do so by referring to the Catechism, the scriptures, early church fathers, etc. At least we have some basis for our conclusions. How many people when asked for a basis for their belief in evolution could actually point to one concrete document? How many have read even one single page of On the Origin of Species? Not too many people have.

The reality for most people is that we believe in evolution primarily as a matter of faith - because we put our faith in scientists who have studied it extensively. Most people barely know anything about it themselves, even if capable of learning the basics.

The point is - I do not think it is fair to characterize someone who does not believe in  evolution as unintelligent, when most people who proclaim a belief in it are not doing much more than making an act of faith themselves.

Quote

Faith is about what we do, not what we manifest in our heads. Faith, too often, is seen as passive. I don't have faith God exists because I already have a relationship with him. Faith, as far as I understand it so far, is about whether I have enough faith in the relationship to go and do what God wants and to become what he asks of me. It's more about the process of growth and freedom than about ideas or grand concepts.

OK, but I don't see how this is relevant. Can you explain? I used the word faith above in a colloquial sense, not a theological sense.

Quote

Some things are more trustworthy than others. An open mind is good, but not so open our brains fall out. The view of a young earth was advanced by people, especially protestant fundamentalists and literalists, as a push back against the enlightenment and in an effort to view the Bible as a linear historical document. It's a fallacy from the start and doesn't do justice to how ancient societies intended texts and how they viewed matters of historicity (very different to us). These religious groups ignore, or are ignorant about, large areas of academic consensus, which is ironic considering they usually claim to take the Bible seriously.

They just read the bible literally, and have faith that the words are true. I don't think that means that their brains have fallen out. Many people claim the same things about us you know - that our brains have fallen out. We believe that a man was born of a virgin, and that a wafer and a glass of wine are transformed into the living God. Science will tell you that these things are impossible, but we believe them because we read the bible literally and have faith that the words are true. Is it really much different?

[Peace]

On 12/4/2015, 11:38:26, Era Might said:

Nah, I realized I don't believe. I love religion as a search into man's depths, but I don't believe in religion literally as revelation from a God.

Hmm. You realized that you don't believe? You seem to suggest that belief is some kind of substance or innate quality that people either have or do not have.

Belief in Christianity is an individual choice that a person has to make. You have to choose to believe or choose not to believe. It is not something that you have or do not have and then you just discover what the case is. You have to own up to your decision to believe or not to believe.

The same is true with God. You choose to follow God or you choose to reject Him.

Just some random thoughts.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Peace

[Era Might]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. You realized that you don't believe? You seem to suggest that belief is some kind of substance or innate quality that people either have or do not have.

Belief in Christianity is an individual choice that a person has to make. You have to choose to believe or choose not to believe. It is not something that you have or do not have and then you just discover what the case is. You have to own up to your decision to believe or not to believe.

The same is true with God. You choose to follow God or you choose to reject Him.

Just some random thoughts.

Yes, I realized that my attempt to believe was not rooted in real belief. Belief is something you either have or don't have, because I have a mind and a spirit made up of my individual knowledge, experience, and existential challenges. If there is a God, then it is worth finding him for real, and not lying to myself in the name of belief, like a relationship where someone only sees what they want to see because they don't want to be alone. Belief is not merely a decision, but a search, and claiming to believe is often the end of the search for people, which is unfortunate.

[Anomaly]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Hmm. You realized that you don't believe? You seem to suggest that belief is some kind of substance or innate quality that people either have or do not have.

Belief in Christianity is an individual choice that a person has to make. You have to choose to believe or choose not to believe. It is not something that you have or do not have and then you just discover what the case is. You have to own up to your decision to believe or not to believe.

The same is true with God. You choose to follow God or you choose to reject Him.

Just some random thoughts.

It isn't just a simple choice to believe or not.   Sure that fits into a simplified Protestant narrative of how it works with turn or burn OSAS theology.  If you believe that is reality, there is little point in attempting to disabuse you of your naivety. 

[Peace]

58 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

It isn't just a simple choice to believe or not.   Sure that fits into a simplified Protestant narrative of how it works with turn or burn OSAS theology.  If you believe that is reality, there is little point in attempting to disabuse you of your naivety. 

I do not believe in OSAS. I am Catholic.

If it is not a choice then tell why don't you tell us what it is. Do you have some scientific evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin that I am not aware of?

As for my naivety - I would appreciate it if you could not make such insults, because I really value your opinion. I can barely even sleep at night without the great Anomaly's recognition of my intelligence.

3 hours ago, Era Might said:

Yes, I realized that my attempt to believe was not rooted in real belief. Belief is something you either have or don't have, because I have a mind and a spirit made up of my individual knowledge, experience, and existential challenges. If there is a God, then it is worth finding him for real, and not lying to myself in the name of belief, like a relationship where someone only sees what they want to see because they don't want to be alone. Belief is not merely a decision, but a search, and claiming to believe is often the end of the search for people, which is unfortunate.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txuf/august86.htm

Dost thou wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: "Except ye believe, ye shall not understand." To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on--"If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." What is the meaning of this, "If any man be willing to do His will"? But I had said, if any man believe; and I gave this counsel: If thou hast not understood, said I, believe. For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand; since, "except ye believe, ye shall not understand."

[Era Might]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

I do not believe in OSAS. I am Catholic.

If it is not a choice then tell why don't you tell us what it is. Do you have some scientific evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin that I am not aware of?

As for my naivety - I would appreciate it if you could not make such insults, because I really value your opinion. I can barely even sleep at night without the great Anomaly's recognition of my intelligence.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txuf/august86.htm

Dost thou wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: "Except ye believe, ye shall not understand." To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on--"If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." What is the meaning of this, "If any man be willing to do His will"? But I had said, if any man believe; and I gave this counsel: If thou hast not understood, said I, believe. For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand; since, "except ye believe, ye shall not understand."

The thing you don't understand is that belief is not simply a credal matter. Protestants believe just as fervently as Catholics, and yet both consider each other wrong, and in extreme cases, consider each other damned. But it's fine, I hope you continue your search and come to a deeper understanding of the Gospel, where the last are first and where Saul, who believes stronger than anyone, becomes Paul, the least of all Apostles who does not even deserve the name of Apostle because, in the name of belief, he persecuted the church of God.

[Anomaly]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

I do not believe in OSAS. I am Catholic.

If it is not a choice then tell why don't you tell us what it is. Do you have some scientific evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin that I am not aware of?

As for my naivety - I would appreciate it if you could not make such insults, ...

Peace, 

Check out the Catechism, paragraphs 26 through 30.   You stated it was a simple decision.  I said it wasn't.  The idea that it's just one simple decision is much like the Protty theology of the one time "accept Jesus into your heart" type action.    I did not mean to insult by calling it naive, but I thought it was better than other descriptors that came to mind.   

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Era Might said:

The thing you don't understand is that belief is not simply a credal matter.

What do you mean by "a credal matter"?

2 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Protestants believe just as fervently as Catholics, and yet both consider each other wrong, and in extreme cases, consider each other damned.

Yes. Protestants make a choice to believe what they believe. Catholics make a choice to believe what we believe. You make a choice to believe what you believe.

When I was in RCIA, I kept doubting various things the priest told me. I kept asking for more and more and more information to convince myself that it was true. That process continues for as long as you desire, because no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to convince you. You have to make a choice. The priest told me "It is not my job to convince you. It is my job to teach you what the Church teaches. It is your choice to believe it or not believe it."

I chose to believe it. That is how it works. That is likely how it will work with you if you come back to the Church. You are never going to have 100% certainty. You have to make a conscious decision to believe and follow what the Church teaches.

2 minutes ago, Era Might said:

But it's fine, I hope you continue your search and come to a deeper understanding of the Gospel, where the last are first and where Saul, who believes stronger than anyone, becomes Paul, the least of all Apostles who does not even deserve the name of Apostle because, in the name of belief, he persecuted the church of God.

Thanks. I hope you continue your search and come to a deeper understanding of the Gospel as well.

8 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Peace, 

Check out the Catechism, paragraphs 26 through 30.   You stated it was a simple decision.  I said it wasn't.  The idea that it's just one simple decision is much like the Protty theology of the one time "accept Jesus into your heart" type action.    I did not mean to insult by calling it naive, but I thought it was better than other descriptors that came to mind.   

I said that it was a choice that one has to make. I don't think I said that it was a simple or easy choice (although for some people it is). It was not a simple or easy choice for me. But it was still a choice that I made.

[stevil]

On 5/12/2015 5:35:00, MarysLittleFlower said:

 

On 5/12/2015 5:25:31, MarysLittleFlower said:

the idea of species evolving into other species is an interpretation of the evidence. The only thing we can observe directly is 'micro evolution' which is just natural selection / common sense.

Stevil - That's not true. Evolution is about descent with modification coupled with "natural" selection. Evolution is not merely decent with modification nor is it merely natural selection. It is both.

Species should not be thought of as discrete groups, especially when considering an ancestral lineage. Each offspring is always of the same species as their parents. What is meant by this is that each offspring is reproductively compatible with their parents. So how do we get from a single cell organism to homo-sapien when these are clearly different species? The answer is very gradually, over many many generations. Each generation is reproductively compatible with the nearby generations but reproductively incompatible with distant generations. There is no clear demarcation between "different" species along our ancestral lineage.

A great example of this (which is similar to ancestral lineage over time) is ring species which can be observed today. There are animals today which have migrated across great distances, leaving colonies along their migrational path. Each colony is reproductively compatible with their neighboring colonies, meaning that they are of the same species as their neighbors, however the most distant colonies, the ones at either end of the migrational path are not reproductively compatible, meaning they are of different species. Species is a relative thing, not a discrete thing.

 

Quote

On 5/12/2015 5:35:00, MarysLittleFlower said:

If evolution supports polygenism,

Stevil - Evolution doesn't support polygenism.

Humans, apes, cows, fish, mushrooms, trees, bacteria are all related. We all fit into the same phylogenetic tree. We all consist of the same DNA language, we share many chromosomes and proteins. We are all cousins.

 

On 5/12/2015 8:32:00, Spem in alium said:

As for Adam and Eve, yes, I believe they were real people living in a world with no death.

Stevil - If evolution is true then humans wouldn't have evolved in a world without death. If there were no death there would be no "survival of the fittest", the world would be over populated and there would be no pressure for simple life forms to evolve towards more complex life forms.

It would also be rather odd. A living creature could walk through fire unharmed. Could fall off a cliff, bounce off rocks hundreds of meters below, sink to the bottom of the ocean and take a week to find themselves a beach with with to walk to the surface, and it would all be OK, noone would be harmed, noone would die. In such a world why would we need to eat? Why would we need lungs and nose or mouth? Why would we need a digestive system? Why would we need a heart and blood? Why would we need an immune system?

On 5/12/2015 8:40:39, Josh said:

So what's your view on dinosaurs? How did they die if there was no death? They came way before humans.

Stevil - Great question.

On 5/12/2015 4:46:06, KnightofChrist said:

I believe Adam and Eve did exist as well as dinosaurs. And yes I believe the Church, sin introduced death into the world.

Stevil - For humans to have evolved there must have been death prior.

On 5/12/2015 4:58:57, KnightofChrist said:

The trouble with science is that it cannot explain many parts of the Faith

Stevil - Science doesn't seek to explain faith. The scientific method is the opposite of believe and faith. Science requires testable and observable supporting evidence. Faith requires lack of evidence.

On 5/12/2015 5:21:18, MarysLittleFlower said:

Science is not infallible and changes all the time.

Stevil - Science is a method of discovery. Science allows for and encourages criticism and skepticism. Science is open to new more accurate theories to replace older, less accurate ones. Science is progressively giving us a more accurate view of the workings of the universe.

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by stevil

[MarysLittleFlower]

Stevil I know I simplified evolution in my description. I have studied about it in biology. Yes science has to do with observable evidence but I don't think that faith is as simple as lack of evidence, though of course most people havent seen God. Its true that even with evidence we need the virtue of faith to accept it, regarding revealed things. For example the Apostles and others saw the Resurrection and that made them be faithful to God (prior to this most of them ran away), but they still need the virtue of faith to understand.

Some things like God's existence we can find out through reason and some things are in natural law. Other parts of our faith are revealed and above reason but not unreasonable. After all people decide to believe in Catholicism because of something. I'm a convert and the way of faith is through grace but not against reason. Rather some things are above our knowledge and understanding, and we need grace to have faith as its something above our nature - literally supernatural. Faith helps to understand more supernatural things by illumining the mind. Anyway just some thoughts on faith and reason Regarding death before the fall, as I understand the Church teaching is that there was no human death before the fall. This was through a union with God rather than simply a natural process. 

Edited December 31, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Cam42]

On 12/4/2015, 2:49:05, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm thinking of asking dUSt to change the name of the Debate Table to the Josh Board. A lot of his threads end up there. Or give it a good sniff, anyway.

His posts remind me of another fella who used to post here alot.  Jus' sayin'