Dear Friends,

This is something I've been ruminating on for a while. All the Apostolic Churches clearly teach about Adam and Eve, their sin, and the inheritance/consequence of that sin for their descendants, our human race.

But how do we square evolution with knowing who Adam and Even were? The fact that evolution is true (vestigial organs in organisms, etc. etc.) is not really debatable. The fact that we humans have evolved from something prior is more debatable, but not really.

Let's be honest: not many of us believe that the earth was created 6,000 some-odd years ago and that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve appeared without any ancestors to speak of. Neither are Catholics required to believe literally in the Creation Story or that Earth is 6,000 years old.

But, as far as I know, we are required to believe that Adam and Eve (whoever they were and however they came about) existed, and that we inherited the consequences of Original Sin from them.

So, my question is: how does the concept of evolution, which seems not to pinpoint the first instance of "humanity" or the human condition or the soul or whatever you want to call it, jive with the belief that our ancestors sinned and introduced its consequences to all their progeny?

I'm not explaining the difficulty I see arising very well, but does this seem troublesome to anyone else? Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Alexis

Alexis:

There is nothing in the Genesis story that is incompatible with evolution. Genesis is an attempt to show the origins of humanity in a world that did not have the fossil evidence that has appeared in our day.

So how do we reconcile this?

The story of Genesis is meant to show that we were created by a Divine Being, a Divine Being Who has kept in contact with His creation and finally comes into it. It is a story about who we are as human beings: created in the image and likeness of the Divine Being Who created everything that we can see and Who is totally Other to His creation. Genesis speaks of our having been given free will--the ability to make our own choices, both good and bad and living with the consequences of those choices. The story of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil I've already commented on here before, though the thread seems to be lost. It shows that we lost the special relationship with our Creator that we were menat to have as human beings.

We understand that we are broken--it seems to be almost intuitive. We understand that no matter how hard we try we cannot control our environment or even our lives. We're here today and gone tomorrow. Somehow the earliest people came up with explanations that helped them cope with what seemed to be a totally random, totally hostile, and sometimes, totally irrational world in which they lived. Something like the bumper sticker that says, "He who dies with the most toys still loses."

The two seemingly contradictory versions become a problem if and only if we treat Genesis in a Protestant fundamentalist fashion--that is, that every word in Genesis is historical fact and not a literary form. We have to see our Scripture as a living thing through which the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth. Remember that Christ Himself told us that He is Truth; Truth is a Person: it's literally none other than Him. That our God could create us by means of some wonderful evolution of His creation should not threaten any true believer. It just demonstrates that he is so far more intelligent than we can even imagine and that He has created it all by Himself out of nothing simply by willing it to be. Examine the largest thing that you can imagine and then get down to those levels below atoms and see the vast intelligence that has created all this "order" and not left it "chaos" and you begin to understand we aren't dealing with one of the gods of ancient mythology. We've dealing with the genuine Article. All this says to me, "Stand up, take notice, and pay close attention." The Word is alive and well. The Scripture is a living thing--the icon of the Living Logos Who came here to re-establish a way for us to again become what we were intended to be: sons of God, heirs of the Kingdom, whole again. I read a anecdote once about a missionary who was trying to convince a native about the wonderful news of Christianity. But the man thought it was too good to be true. So they walked along together until they came to a huge ant hill. The missionary asked the man to imagine himself to be God. And then he asked the native how he would tell the ants that he loved them if he were God. The light went on and the native replied, "I'd become an ant."

What separates us from the slime and the creatures that are less than us is this: memory, intelligence, and will. These three are the things that make up the soul and that will last forever. There was a long dissertation on EWTN some years back when I lay flat on my back in therapy, but the preacher demonstrated quite well how these three will last into eternity and they are three things that other creatures do not have in the sam way and degree that we do. (Intelligence in animals he showed was not the same as human intelligence, but rather was of a more primitive type.)

So the point here is that Genesis does not necessarily oppose evolution. It is another way of examining this vast, complex creation we are part of. Evolution, however, fails to tell us the reason for it all. It just tells us what has been. It still takes a leap of faith to understand what will be and why it is.

In Christ,

BOB

Evolution is constantly changing it's findings, so I prefer the teachings of the Fathers over the predominantly atheistic evolutionists who are pushing an anti-Christian agenda. If all things should be considered by the Scientific community, than surely the findings of Hindu archeologist Michael Cremo, author of Forbidden Archeology should be included.

At one time there were no humans. And then, there were. There was a first instance of humanity. Created by God in His image and likeness, these humans were free from corruption. When tempted, they freely chose to disobey God, for which He justly punished them and their descendents.

Bob,

Thank you for your clarification. It does make a lot of sense, but I've never, ever been prone to interpret Genesis literally. The real crux of the question is, I think, what John is pointing to.

My real question has to do with how did Original Sin/the consequences of our fallen humanity/whatever (I'm not looking to get into an East vs. West debate here) come to be? Were there, or were there not, two historical persons who were the first humans who introduced it by their disobedience of God? If not, how do we explain the human condition under Original Sin?

I suppose even in evolution there were at one instance non-humans, as John says, and then the next generation were what we could pass off as humans, with a soul, etc. This would mean that the first humans' parents were humanoid, but not human, not possessing immortal souls and will etc. like their children. So did these first humans disobey God and bring Original Sin into existence?

I am really having the hardest time formulating my questions, but it has something to do with not understanding how Original Sin came about when we consider evolution, which despite Lawrence's disagreement, I certainly believe in (and am allowed to as a Catholic).

Alexis

The theory of evolution remains a theory.

If the theory of evolution were in fact a law, then we would have to see apes evolving into men, and they are not, and we have no clear evidence of this for thousands of years.

The only "skeletal remains" recently found in Africa are supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old. Yet even these remains are distinctly not ape like, but uniquely human.

Where are those missing links? Yes, we had some apparent missing links found in skulls until the fraud was discovered. And text books on evolution do not mention those frauds but continue the myth. Yes, the wonderful French Jesuit Teillhard de Chardin manufactured at least two skulls which fooled scientists for many years until his crime was uncovered but barely disclosed to the public.

Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution is in fact the case. Then what?

Alexis

Then we might as well say that God is not the creator or that man does not have a special immortal soul which only God can create.

And that fallacy leads to a bunch of illogical thinking.

One day in the future we may hear that a team of historians with a mountain of academic credentials, has discovered proof positive that Jesus Christ never existed. When we dispute their findings their will be no shortage of people ready to call us idiots, for daring to contradict people with PHD's from Princeton, Harvard and Oxford.

Theologians are those who pray and experience God "theoria".

Atheists are those who study God with a view to dissect Him into tiny parts so that He no longer exists. Many scholarly "theologians" have become atheists or agnostics due to their metaphysical studies. Can we truthfully call them "theologians?"

In this case wouldn't PHD = Pin Head Dummies?

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossian 2:8

Yes, in my opinion the traditional understandings of the Fall and the origins of man and sin to me fall apart in the face of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis (evolution + Mendelian genetics).

You might find this interesting.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/377

The first humans did not have "parents" - but were a new creation from out of a previous, lesser creation (be it dust or beast). They are our first parents.

These first humans disobeyed God. There is no other origin of Original Sin. This is it's origin, as is revealed to us in Holy Scripture and Tradition.

Thanks, AMM. I'll check it out in a minute.

Elizabeth Maria,

I must disagree with you re: God can't be the Creator and that we don't have immortal souls if evolution is true.

The Catholic Church tells its adherents that we are not by any means required to believe in Creation and that good, orthodox Catholics can believe in evolution. If evolution were such a threat to God's position as Creator and and somehow proves that we humans don't have souls, then the Catholic Church would never, ever teach that it was acceptable to believe in evolution.

There has to be another way, and I think John is going the direction that's making the most sense to me. It answers my question in a vague fashion, at least. I'm still not totally clear on it, and I have yet to check out AMM's link (but the fact that it's from The Tablet scares me!).

The fact remains that since Christianity is True and worships He Who is Truth itself, that true and accurate scientific discoveries can never go against the truths of our Faith. And from our Faith we know that Original Sin has somehow entered into humanity by the Fall of our First Parents, and, I'm sorry, evolution seems more or less to be true.

I am not just going to shut off my brain and not ask questions. I vehemently believe that that is definitely not the answer, and that since I believe Christianity to be true I have nothing to worry about. I am just trying to get a few things straight that I've been wondering about.

Alexis

Alexis:

Glroy be to Jesus Christ!! Glory be to Him forever and ever!!

It might be that the Eastern theological explanation of what Original Sin is about might fit this discussion and bridge the gaps you seem to see. The East does not go with the Augustinian description that is so common in the West: that our First Parents were perfect and then had a great fall. You might want to search some of the discussions held on this forum earlier for a fuller exposition of this different approach.

In Christ,

BOB

Alexis,

I have long found it interesting that acceptance of the certainty of the scientific fact of evolution is regarded almost universally as being a kind of touchstone for academic competency.

For my part, I have made a few observations in my lifetime, which I would like to share. Way back when I was in high school (1967-1971), "Neo-Darwinism" was still in it heyday. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, which is seldom used nowadays, Neo-Darwinism was an attempt to square Darwin's theory with the science of Genetics. It posited that all evolution takes place as the result of genetic mutations, and gave rise to hundreds of experiments that sought in various ways to produce genetic mutations in fruit flies, thereby inducing the evolution of some new species from fruit fly parents. (Fruit flies were chosen because of their extremely simple genetic composition.) A lot of excitement accompanied these experiments back then, because *everybody* seemed sure that the big breakthrough was "just around the corner."

That excitement waned during the 1970's, and some time before 1980 the entire project was abandoned. The scientific community quickly shrugged it off and went on exploring in other areas, but they never attempted to answer the question--why was the search abandoned? No one has tried to say that some kind of genetic change isn't necessary in order to have one species evolve into another, nor has any new theory been promoted to explain how this might be able to take place without genetic mutations. (How can I be so sure about this? Simply because if anybody had done so it would have been all over the news, and commentators would continue to talk about it for years.)

Without this simple key to the puzzle--a key that is now generally dismissed as unnecessary--evolution can be nothing more than a theory. The big question of "what makes one species evolve into another species?" cannot be answered.

Certainly, I will allow that with the technology available today, the same experiments could be done much more carefully and the results measured and evaluated much more accurately than they could in the 1970's. Perhaps someone will try this. My suspicion, however, is that no one will for a very simple reason--there is no need to do so, since acceptance of the certainty of evolution as a scientific fact is now virtually universal. There would be little to gain at this point by trying to find this elusive key, and another failure might be harder to sweep under the rug ...

From this perspective, I see little need to square Genesis with evolution.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Elizabeth, even if evolution were a "Law", it still may not hold water. There are many theories that became laws in physics only to be proven wrong by quantum mechanics.

Well, I suppose that we shall evolve from our meek and sinful humanity to glorious sons of God through the spiritual evolution of deification.

I''m quite sure this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.


HUMANI GENERIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950


My emphasis.

Now if we are simply speaking of the "evolution" of the "human body" there is an interesting conundrum here. When "the" body did not have a human soul, it was not in fact a human body. When God infused in Adam a living soul, it was only then that there was a man. What then is the point of evolution? As far as I know, any evolutionist worth his salt is attempting to show that man, as we know him, came not from God but by chance-- a mere accident.

For a good discussion on evolution, see

http://www.kolbecenter.org/home.html

Even if, granted it won't happen, but even if Jesus was proven not to exist, he in fact did. He is the Word made flesh. So God's Word has entered our world whether it be in a person or as the Gospel. The fact is the Word is among us.

Isn't it interesting how no one wants to touch the fact that the scholarly Fr. Teillhard de Chardin created two frauds that were pivotal in promoting the myth of evolution?

This is what the Jesuit priest, Teillard de Chardin was advocating, but weren't his teachings bordering on pelagianism? That we would evolve naturally?




p.s. Forgive my constant edits and please pray that my double vision will be healed. Doctors say there is no cure.

I am not following you. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint humanity and that we are still capable of chosing good without Divine aid.

Exactly, and that is why I have stated that if we accept the theory of evolution as occurring naturally, then we must somehow deny God's participation in all those "random" mutations. And how would that ape come to have human cognition, the human desire to live forever, the ability to remember the past and to anticipate the future, and more importantly the experience of the divine life within us without God, Who is the author of Life.

Read C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy.

Pelagianism is the belief that we can get into heaven without Divine Grace. We can do it our way.

Teillhard de Chardin taught that we could evolve naturally into divine beings. Just as apes could evolve naturally into humans. God was not needed in this picture.

And then he created those two fake skulls -- those missing links.

I used to have to control myself when one of those goofy sidewalk preachers came through Iowas State. I so very much wanted to point out that he was blaspheming--by insisting that God could only create in the literal description of Genesis, he, the creature, was presuming to limit the Creator and prescribe how the Creator must function.

I'm simply satisfied that God created the world and man, and accept that he did it in whatever manner best suited him. I'm not even all that interested in how he did it. Mildly curious, sure, but there are so many interests so far ahead of that that it treally doesn't get any of my time and attention.

Basically, "His Creation, His Rules"

hawk

Good point. Anyone who has studied a field of science knows that science is not infallible. Science is simply Limited Man's attempt to understand Unlimited God's universe. To think that we can provide all the answers through science is the height of human hubris.

Amen!

I think a big problem with some Christians making belief in a literal Adam & Eve on the same par with Orthodox beliefs in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Belief in a literal Adam & Eve is not necessary for Salvation. Conservative Protestants are sometimes guilty of this. It waters down genuine orthodoxy in my view.

Having said that, I do not have a problem with it either. I am open to a literal Adam & Eve, or Theistic evolution, or the possibility of both being true (and that we have a single set of parents- "one blood," as Acts puts it).

The Bible is the word of God, infallible. But its infallibility does not depend on the first 11 chapters of Genesis being literal, objective history in time & space.

The real tragedy of Teilhard de Chardin was not that he fabricated his findings, but rather that individuals such as John XXIII and John Paul II would speak so favorably of him.

If you really want to take a peak into what's behind the curtain of evolution, read some of the books written by archeologist Michael Cremo, who is actually a Hindu convert and not an Evangelical. Cremo's well documented findings will absolutely blow your mind, unless of course you choose to believe they're fabrications. Warning, he is not popular with the evolutionist community.

Oh, I wasn't familiar with this fellow. After spending some time reading about him I realized that it was a waste of time reading about him and I was better off not knowing about him, lol.

I attended my old Latin rite parish this morning. In his homily, the priest said the Adam and Eve story was a myth; that our fallen state results from our own actions, not those of our original parents. This, of course, is heresy --- the result of little or no "quality control" by most Latin rite bishops. A sad, disappointing situation. So I left church feeling angry but also grateful that there is an Eastern rite (Ukranian) parish in my town. I believe God has given us the Eastern rite as an antidote to the decadence so prevalent today in our Church.

Im:

I think you supplied the support for the statement I made. I was not referring to souls. I was attempting to show Alexis that the Catholic Church does not buy into Genesis being a leiteral description of how we came to be as far as our earthly bodies came to be.

I did make the point that at some point, to make us different from all other creatures on this planet, God gave man an immortal soul. That does make us different that all other creatures. And I listed the characteristics of what makes a human soul a human soul.

In Christ,

BOB

Lawrence:

Don't know about Pope John XXIII but Pope John Paul II through the Curia was supposed to have repeated the Church's condemnation of Teilhard's theological theories. If memory serves, it was some time in the early 1980s.

In Christ,

BOB

I'll have to throw my hat in with hawk here. I've read so many books and articles and attended so many conferences, that I've basically come to the conclusion that I'm not smart enough to understand things when the details get heavy. Did God create the world in a literal 6 days? He certainly could have. Or he could have been the artist that enjoyed taking his "time" creating all things that would eventually lead up to the culmination of His masterpiece, mankind, Adam and Eve. Despite the criticisms in the media of the Intelligent Design movement, I find that they have the best explanation of origins around. I've spoken with many of the people within ID in person and I found that some of them do believe in a literal 6 day creation and some of them don't.
So to get back to the OP, I would have to say that if Christ is the second Adam, and the Blessed Theotokos is the second Eve, then their must have been a literal first Adam and a literal first Eve. I no longer have any problem/conflict with Adam and Eve being the first and original human beings on Earth.

I thought there was some theory out there some years ago that genetic tracing had produced the "proof" that we had all come from a single genetic woman. Does anyone remember reading that?

BOB

Yes through the study of mitochrondria DNA, scientists are saying that there was a first Eve ... or maybe four of them.

There were a group of theologians who put forward the idea of polygenism but the Latin Church never bought into this, of course, because it is incompatible with the Western view of Original Sin.I remember seeing a program which spoke of one single source of the human race.
Stephanos I

Bob

Here's the quote from John Paul II regarding Teilhard de Chardin.

on page 7 of the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano, October 30, 1996, Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying: "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

LAWRENCE:

Which theory does His Holiness refer to in this quote?

I was referring to the condemnation of his theology during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

BOB

Bob

I'm still looking for the article in it's entirety. October 1996 was a month when John Paul II made a number of statements regarding the theory of evolution.

Sorry but your post point seems unclear to me?
Stephanos I

It was in regards to favorable statements John Paul II made concerning Teilhard de Chardin and his evolutionary theories.

Mitochondrial DNA drifts at a known and consistent rate. By measuring the amount of divergence & similarity, all of humanity does indeed share a single foremother in a particular part (I forget which) of Africa--*EXCEPT* for some people actually *in* that reason, who seem to come from a different mitochondrial line. Those who left the region, though, all trace to that one woman.

There are also some interesting studies on the Y chromosome, which passes down the male line, confirming the Jewish lineage of some widespread groups with similar practices and beliefs to Judaism.

hawk

This was turning into an interesting thread, so to keep it going I'm interested in knowing, if Catholics may believe in the theory of evolution, what exactly may they believe ? Obviously one cannot believe that man evolved from something other than man, because that would be a definite denial of the clear word of God. So does it imply that we're free to believe in the evolution of all other creatures except for man ?

Interesting.

I wonder how Christ can be the second Adam if there was no first Adam.

Interesting that you would mention this, Lawrence.

Teilhard de Chardin did think that man continues to evolve.

However, if an ape did evolve into a human as some believe, then why don't apes continue to evolve in this present age, and why don't humans evolve into a holy lineage or devolve into a lower form that is physically stronger but spiritually weak. Could it be that the super rich controlling families, who have no morals, are part of that downward evolutionary spiral that we just do not notice yet?

p.s. I do not believe in evolution, but I do notice that recently my international ESL students have been displaying more reprobate behaviors as they try to emulate the American wealthy and Jet Set generation. This greatly disturbs me.

For Catholics it is an open question but with some limitations.
Personally myself, it depends what you mean by "evolve".
If by that you mean continue to develope within the species, for example, get taller, larger, etc. then yes.
But if you mean we developed from another species and are just like all the others of the animal kingom, then definitely not.
I do not believe in the theory of polygenism, in no way. I believe God created two historic individuals who were our proto parents from whom all of humanity have descended.

I believe that God is the immediate creator of man and that God continues to uphold and guide creation.I do not believe that we just came into existence by chance.
Stephanos I

I have to admit that I don't agree with this comment. A good book to read is Francis Collins', "The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". Collins was head of the Human Genome Project.

I find no conflict between faith (the three different accounts of creation presented in Genesis), and reason (science). How can faith and reason be in conflict, they are both gifts to us from Christ. If there is an apparent conflict I suggest that it is due to our limited undertanding, not due to a real conflict. Humility is always a virtue.

hmmmm, I wonder. Of course it is a myth, all three accounts of creation (re-creation) are a myth. (Myth is a good word not a bad one. Myth is not the same as fiction, e.g. Santa Claus is fiction, not myth.) But back to the homily , as I read this I am reminded of a related question, 'who is responsible for the death of Jesus, who crucified Him?' I recall the answer that St Francis of Assisi gives to this question: "We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him. Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins."

So you are implying that the account in Genesis of the fall of man is also a myth ?

Did you know that the only Catholic church in the world named "Adam and Eve's" is in Dublin, Ireland?

Fr. Serge

Their are two conflicting views of God.
One deistic - God indeed created but then retreated and left everything on its on to develope. God is totally transcendant.

Then there is the theistic view of God. God is the source and center of all creation, He upholds its very being, he is active in every atom, proton and neutron, guiding it to its final end.
Stephanos I

WOW !!
Now that is one of those odd bits of information to store away in the depths of one's mind

So come for Holy Week and see it for yourself! It's served by the Franciscans. When the Pope visited Ireland, even he was shocked to find a large church with that name.

Fr. Serge

not this year I fear - dunno what I will be likely doing for either OC or NC Holy Week
day to day living is quite enough to be coping with at present

I think this is an excellent response to the evolutionist community http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

the Scripture says that by one man sin came into the world, and by one Man (Jesus Christ)came our salvation. if Adam and Eve is a myth, so is Jesus Christ and our salvation. one problem with evolution is that it has led to racist thinking. one can say that one people group is more human than an other, thus the not so human group is subject to being treated less than human. years ago, the National States Rights party ( now dead) came up wit the theory that Black people were 400,000 years behind White people on the evolutionary scale (how convenient, you can treat Blacks like animals and get away with it). so, are there people groups now that you don't consider as human as yourself?
back to Adam and Eve: I take the account literally, and Scripture, which is infallible and inerrant in all that it teaches, trumps the blathering of any "Priest" any day. I'm not the least bit surprised that it was a Latin priest who barfed forth his garabage. since the end of Vatican 11, the Latins have been plagued with drivel that is nothing but a mish mosh of Liberalism, Marxism, and New Age. thank GOD I'm an Eastern!
Much Love,
Jonn

Another good book to read concerning Darwin's naturalism and the theory of evolution is found at Amazon.com

Weikart, Richard. (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403965021/orthodoxchris-20

This excellent book is reviewed by Father Johannes L. Jacobse at

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/JacobseDarHitlerEssay.php

Lawrence,

I'll remember your link the next time I need the SSPX to back up one of my positions!

Alexis

In an academic environment, the term "myth" is often used to refer to ancient stories that explain things about the human condition, without any reference to whether the stories are "historical" or not--from this perspective, the question simply is not pertinent. As far as I'm aware, this is the only sense in which "myth is a good word."

In common usage, however, "myth" is generally understood to mean a falsehood that is believed by many--to their detriment.

I would object to applying even the first meaning of myth to any of the scriptural accounts.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

right.
along with that and the post you quoted, let me add something.
Neo-Orthodoxy was a response to Liberalism, a school of theological tthought that died after the first World War.Neo-Orthodox theologians (like Barth) reintitued the idea of Sin (not sins, but Sin, and they were right on target, read Niebuhr's "Moral Man Immoral Society"). HOWEVER, whereas Liberalism discounted the Incarnation (as real Christians know it), along with other Christological teachings, they also discounted miracles, etc. but maintaining that they did not happen in concrete History, but on another plane, the supernatural, they did. so, Santa Claus may not be a historical fact, but on the plane of the supernatural, Santa exists. Just like the Resurrection happened on another plane, and it does not matter if Jesus really rose from the dead on a historical plane, just as long as he subjectively rose in your heart. our Bible, our faith, everything is a subjective opinion and therefore myth for us. a few years ago, I heard one prof of Neo-Orthodoxy (which passed on in the late sixties, but their purveyors conveniently do not notice that HISTORICAL fact)say to a class of adults that he still believed the myhts because it was something he wanted to live for. hindsight being what it is, I wish I asked him if he was willing to die for those myths if a Saracen held a blade at his throat, or say that all those myths were a pile of !@#$, and he'll recite the Shahada or anything else to save his life.
Much Love,
Jonn