Author Topic: Adam and Eve & Original Sin  (Read 1171 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« on: Jun 06, 2012, 09:01:33 PM »
I am curious, arguing an issue, my understanding is that historically Christians thought that Adam and Eve were literal people who ate of the forbidden fruit. Is that correct and incorrect?

I am arguing that there are many things in the bible that historically people took as literal but not take as allegory.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Online seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 28760
  • My homunculus uses shit logic.
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #1 on: Jun 06, 2012, 10:34:50 PM »
Depends on who you ask. Puts on his apologist hat.

Adam and eve are metaphorical. As we evolved we developed morality. We recognized that there was right and wrong. We realized we were naked. We realized over generations and generations that we were sinful.

Takes that fucker off. Bullshit.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Shibboleth

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5210
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #2 on: Jun 06, 2012, 10:38:56 PM »
Orriginal Sin as many think of it today came into birth under Augustine. As far as Genesis it really depends on what aspects you are talking about. While I think that the Church Fathers were consistent on Adam and Eve existing there were differing opinions on everything wrapped around the story. Many of the Church Fathers expressed ideas that much of Genesis was probably allegory or at the very least nebulous in nature. 

I do not know what the Jews thought but I can almost grantee that both the Pharisees and Sadducees took Genesis literally.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Online Neon Genesis

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6619
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #3 on: Jun 06, 2012, 10:51:25 PM »
Quote
    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[19]

    With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.-Saint Augustine

Offline jomike

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #4 on: Jun 07, 2012, 08:07:59 AM »
I am curious, arguing an issue, my understanding is that historically Christians thought that Adam and Eve were literal people who ate of the forbidden fruit. Is that correct and incorrect?

I am arguing that there are many things in the bible that historically people took as literal but not take as allegory.


(I assume that last bit should read "but now take as allegory.")  Yes, Christian doctrine holds that the Adam and Eve of Genesis were actual people, not symbolic representations.  I don't know the percentages, but I'm sure you're right, that most Christians nowadays take the story as allegorical.  This view raises difficult questions regarding core Christian doctrine, as Eric MacDonald explains here and here.

Offline Shibboleth

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5210
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #5 on: Jun 07, 2012, 08:43:09 AM »
Yes, Christian doctrine holds that the Adam and Eve of Genesis were actual people, not symbolic representations. 

It does? Which doctrine? What time period? Catholics for instance believe in doctrinal development.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Offline goodthink

  • Deleted
  • Well Established
  • *
  • Posts: 1790
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #6 on: Jun 07, 2012, 09:37:36 AM »
It's my understanding the early church taught Adam and Eve as a metaphor.

Offline goodthink

  • Deleted
  • Well Established
  • *
  • Posts: 1790
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #7 on: Jun 07, 2012, 09:48:45 AM »
I will amend a bit further.


It's my understanding that prevailing Jewish doctrine was Adam and Eve were metaphorical. Jesus being jewish would have seen them as metaphors.

Offline superdave

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4065
  • Religious, but not spiritual
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #8 on: Jun 07, 2012, 09:50:23 AM »
Orthodox Judaism views the story as mostly literal, but does not believe in the concept of original sin.

Offline jomike

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #9 on: Jun 07, 2012, 05:45:24 PM »
Yes, Christian doctrine holds that the Adam and Eve of Genesis were actual people, not symbolic representations. 


It does? Which doctrine? What time period?


http://whynotcatholicism.net/view/what-are-the-catholic-churchs-official-teachings-on-origins

Quote
Some teachings on origins that the church has definitively taught
   
God created everything.
God is almighty.
Man is unique.
There really was an historic first man: Adam.
All human beings now on Earth have Adam as their ancestor.
Because of this descent from him, we are born in Original Sin.
There was an Original Sin, through the Devil's temptation, in actual historical fact.
It was committed by our first parents: Adam and Eve (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, 1997).
Eve was formed from Adam's body (D 2123 PBC; & Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Pope Leo XIII, 1880).


Affirmed by (for example, and among many others) by the fifth session of the Council of Trent:

Quote
...the Church itself, ordains, confesses, and declares these things touching the said original sin:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema...


and by Pius XII in the 1950 Humani Generis:

Quote
...the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.


That is doctrine.  That's why it's controversial when someone with standing within the Church makes statements to the contrary, as Cardinal George Pell did in a recent debate with Richard Dawkins:

Quote
“Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Now Richard Dawkins, who proved himself more astute than Pell in seeing the implications of Pell's denial of a historic Adam and Eve, retorted with this question: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know, if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?” It's painful to watch the Cardinal's sullen, silent expression after this question. He is unable to come up with any answer.

Dawkins is spot on here: No original parents, no original sin. No original sin, no explanation for sin in the world. No explanation for sin, no need for a savior. Christianity, apart from the reality of original sin, does not make any sense. It's a shame that Dawkins understands this better than the Cardinal. That is very troubling.

What is equally troubling is that the Cardinal does not seem aware of Pius XII's teaching in Humani Generis. In that encyclical, Pius XII specifically condemns the opinion known as polygenism, which is the belief that Adam "represents a number of first parents."


The doctrines of original sin and the Fall and the Atonement are central to western Christianity.  Besides RCs, most mainstream and evangelical Protestant denominations hold to the actual existence of Adam and Eve, and suggestions to the contrary are regarded as controversial and unorthodox"

www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

Quote
Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church....

"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.

...Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind.

"When Adam sinned, he sinned for us," Mohler says. "And it's that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.

Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.


My understanding is that Orthodox Christianity differs from the Roman Church WRT original sin, but AFAIK the Eastern churches have never asserted the nonexistence of an actual Adam and Eve.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Catholics for instance believe in doctrinal development.

Certainly, doctrine does evolve over time, but the point is that the doctrine that Adam and Eve were actual persons from whom all of us descended remains the official doctrine of most Christian denominations, and assertions to the contrary are controversial.
« Last Edit: Jun 07, 2012, 05:48:31 PM by jomike »

Online Neon Genesis

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6619
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #10 on: Jun 07, 2012, 05:52:08 PM »
Didn't the current pope recently say it was ok for Catholics to believe in evolution?  So if it's heretical for Catholics to deny the existence of Adam and Eve, is the current pope a heretic?

Offline jomike

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #11 on: Jun 07, 2012, 07:31:27 PM »
Didn't the current pope recently say it was ok for Catholics to believe in evolution?  So if it's heretical for Catholics to deny the existence of Adam and Eve, is the current pope a heretic?

I don't know constitutes according-to-Hoyle heresy, but it's difficult to imagine someone like Cardinal Pell being accused of it merely for questioning the literal existence of Adam and Eve.  Anyway, that has nothing to do with theistic evolution.  For doctrinal purposes one can just as easily imagine the Adam character as Homo ergaster as Homo sapiens sapiens.

Online Neon Genesis

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6619
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #12 on: Jun 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM »
Why does Paul blame all the problems of the world on Adam anyway when according to the story it was Eve that sinned first?

Offline Shibboleth

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5210
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #13 on: Jun 07, 2012, 07:59:33 PM »
Both the Orthodox and the Catholics teach of an actual Adam and Eve but everything else wrapped around them can be viewed as figurative in nature.

From the CCC
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

If a Catholic really wants to they can believe in polygenism. Pius XIII strongly commented against the idea but didn't outright reject it.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Online MikeHz

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7428
Re: Adam and Eve & Original Sin
« Reply #14 on: Jun 07, 2012, 08:30:33 PM »
I was taught evolution in the Catholic college I attended.
If you still hold the same views now as you did in high school, you probably should reexamine those views.