E
edwest2
Guest
Uh, it never stops until full compliance is achieved. You’ll be breaking out more popcorn on a regular basis.
where it stops no body knows . . .
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Please see the following, and starting at 115, please indicate what kind of story it is.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
So why treat it like one now? Here, we are told that science is silent about God and the supernatural. Divine Revelation, however, gives us factual knowledge which science cannot study using its own methods. Bringing scientific explanations into truth revealed to us by God is a misapplication of science.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Of course they cancel each other out. What is the difference between a Biology textbook for believers and non-believers? None. But if the crucial information that Adam and Eve, two literal individuals, are our first parents is left out, then the reason Christ was born is what? We are all called to preach the risen Christ and the Gospel. As fact.I saw that debate, and put my hands over my face in shame, when the Cardinal dismissed the reality of Adam and Eve.
I think Dawkins was right to quickly point out, what about original sin then
It doesn’t have to be an either, or!
Evolution is true or the bible is true.
I just don’t think that’s necessary, you can have Theistic evolution be true, and have the biblical story be true as well, they do not cancel one another out!
We can have both, and
People who were physically human, could have been around before Adam, but they were only humans PHYSICALLY, they lacked what Adam had, a Soul (Nephesh)
How old was Adam when he came to be?
The bible implies he was not a wee little baby, but an adult, so could God have progressively used Evolutionary means to develop humans? …I think so!
Could those “humans” been ancestors to Adam?..I think so!
Were they human beings as we have human beings today, ones that have a rational intellect, a will, and a spirit? …I think NOT!
I think the first, truly human being, was not just physically human, but endowed with a rational intellect, a will, and a Spirit, an innermost part of being where God abides, his name was Adam!
Adam may have been ONLY PHYSICALLY HUMAN, until God breathed life, a soul (the Nephesh) into Adam, it was then, that Adam truly became human, not only PHYSICALLY HUMAN, BUT SPIRITUALLY HUMAN, making Adam, man, as we understand mankind today!
So you can have your cake and eat it too!
Both, and, theistic evolution, and a literal Adam!
Science is true and the biblical account is true, a both and scenario, rather than the either or, that pits science against scripture!
God bless!
Peace,
Ed
O
onemangang
Guest
I think you can have theistic evolution be true, and still have a literal Adam and Eve!
They don’t cancelled each other out!
If you read my post, I do not deny a literal Adam!
I will state my point perhaps a bit more clearly this time!
Man wasn’t fully human until God breathed a soul into Adam, any proto-human, Neanderthal, homo-sapien, or what have you, lacked intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God. Therefore, was not Man, they may have been Homo-Sapiens physically, but not man as we understand man today, one with an intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God!
It doesn’t necessitate that God created Adam ex-nihlio, He could have created Adam by evolutionary means, from the earth!
Before Adam, any physical human being, would simply have been a living creature, lacking a rational intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God!
It is the soul, which defines man, not biology alone!
You can call them biological humans, but what they were not, is MAN!
Adam was the first Man, literally as I see it, although, not the first biological Human being!
Genesis 1:24 And God said, “**Let *the earth bring forth living creatures *according to their kinds: **cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
I do not deny a literal, first Adam, and I do believe in theistic evolution, or Intellegent design, call it what you will, creation if you please, just not young earth creationism!
God bless!
M
Memaw
Guest
Science can’t even begin to understand the Mysteries of God and I think that’s what bothers them. So they have to try to figure out another explaination. I wonder where that “missing link” is that they have been looking for. for sooo many years. God Bless, God Bless. Memaw
E
edwest2
Guest
I see what you’re saying but the Church has said through Humani Generis:
“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For 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.[12]”
Peace,
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
“….when Pope John Paul says in his Message (22 October 1996) that the plurality of theories of evolution “has to do with the diversity of explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution,” he is not implying that there is an identified mechanism of evolution, but rather that there are several theories regarding a supposed mechanism of evolution that has never been verified by scientifically proven facts.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt72.html
Obviously, Darwinian evolutionism is an historical assumption which seeks to affirm its beliefs with empirical science, and it has not been scientifically verified, as Pope Benedict XVI has suggested.
The opinion of Bl John Paul II that “the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” refers to what the Pope had been told and does not have the status of being even equivalent to, much less superior to, his doctrinal affirmation of Pius XII’s teaching. Fr David Becker in his letter to John Paul II pointed out: “Fr Jaki, we must note, played a major role in composing the Message which Your Holiness signed and sent to the Pontifical Academy.” [Dec 25, 1996. *WatchMaker, Nov-Dec 1996].
The above opinion by Bl John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes.
Note that Pope John Paul II reiterated the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis that the evolution of the human body “should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises.” *Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences *on October 22, 1996, 4].
Addressing theologians in 1966, Pope Paul VI reiterated that “Catholic doctrine on original sin was re-affirmed in the Second Vatican Council” (Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes) “in full consonance with divine revelation and the teaching of the preceding Councils of Carthage, Orange and Trent.” He affirmed that “the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendents, not through imitation but through propagation.” (The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, 1987, J.W.J. Johnson, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, Inc.).
From Catholic Culture:
**Summary of Pope John Paul II’s Catechesis on Original Sin **
Extract:
2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship. The Tridentine Decree (DS 1512) explicitly states that Adam’s sin tainted not only himself but also all his descendants. Adam forfeited original justice and holiness not only for himself but also for us (nobis etiam). Therefore, he transmitted to the whole human race not only bodily death and other penalties (consequences of sin) but also sin itself as the death of the soul (peccatum quod est mors animae.)
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5491&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1179562
There is no question of Adam and Eve being our first parents and tainting us with the facts of Original Sin.
“684. Besides Adam and Eve we read only of Cain and Abel. Whom did Cain marry?
Your knowledge is inadequate. Had you read on, you would have seen in the fifth chapter of Genesis that Adam begot Seth, and after that lived on for some 800 years, begetting sons and daughters. Cain very probably married a sister. He could even have married a niece! But that would involve the marriage of a brother and sister at some stage, or indeed of several brothers and sisters. With the cessation of necessity, such close inter-relationship was forbidden. But special conditions naturally prevailed in such special circumstances as the starting of the human race. God exercised a special providence to safeguard the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with close inter-marriage. And after all, a sister would not be so closely related to Cain as Eve was to Adam. Cain’s wife was not made out of his own rib! Whom Cain married precisely is not mentioned, as not being very important. One book cannot give all the names that have occurred in history, and the Bible gives but a summary outline of chief events.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Cain&db=1
T
thistle
Guest
Nov-Dec 1996].
The above opinion by Bl John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes.
Note that Pope John Paul II reiterated the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis that the evolution of the human body “should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises.” *Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences *on October 22, 1996, 4].
Addressing theologians in 1966, Pope Paul VI reiterated that “Catholic doctrine on original sin was re-affirmed in the Second Vatican Council” (Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes) “in full consonance with divine revelation and the teaching of the preceding Councils of Carthage, Orange and Trent.” He affirmed that “the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendents, not through imitation but through propagation.” (The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, 1987, J.W.J. Johnson, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, Inc.).
From Catholic Culture:
**Summary of Pope John Paul II’s Catechesis on Original Sin **
Extract:
2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship. The Tridentine Decree (DS 1512) explicitly states that Adam’s sin tainted not only himself but also all his descendants. Adam forfeited original justice and holiness not only for himself but also for us (nobis etiam). Therefore, he transmitted to the whole human race not only bodily death and other penalties (consequences of sin) but also sin itself as the death of the soul (peccatum quod est mors animae.)
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5491&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1179562
There is no question of Adam and Eve being our first parents and tainting us with the facts of Original Sin.
“684. Besides Adam and Eve we read only of Cain and Abel. Whom did Cain marry?
Your knowledge is inadequate. Had you read on, you would have seen in the fifth chapter of Genesis that Adam begot Seth, and after that lived on for some 800 years, begetting sons and daughters. Cain very probably married a sister. He could even have married a niece! But that would involve the marriage of a brother and sister at some stage, or indeed of several brothers and sisters. With the cessation of necessity, such close inter-relationship was forbidden. But special conditions naturally prevailed in such special circumstances as the starting of the human race. God exercised a special providence to safeguard the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with close inter-marriage. And after all, a sister would not be so closely related to Cain as Eve was to Adam. Cain’s wife was not made out of his own rib! Whom Cain married precisely is not mentioned, as not being very important. One book cannot give all the names that have occurred in history, and the Bible gives but a summary outline of chief events.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Cain&db=1
I do not believe Cain married his sister and the Church certainly does not teach that. You are simply speculating. Show me where the Church says Cain married his sister. None of the things you have quoted in your posts in this thread states that.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Do you have a point?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I have indicated what kind of story it is, albeit briefly.
It is not the superstition that you want it to be.
B
By_His_Mercy
Guest
Gen 5:4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
Maybe from them?
Gen 5:7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.
Maybe from them?
Gen 5:10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters.
Maybe from them?
-BHM
B
buffalo
Guest
*] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
*] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
*] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
*] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
*] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
*] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
*] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
*] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
*] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
*] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
*] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
*] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
*] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
*] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
*] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
*] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
*] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
*] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
*] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
*] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
A
Aloysium
Guest
Who else would he have married.
At that point in time, it is not unreasonable to assume that genetics were different than today. They were closer to the beginning, as a baby is to its beginning. You notice how we heal better when we are younger. It is also probable that they lived very long lives and/or had many kids. Additionally, the family that seems closest to what we have today is that of Noah. Before that scripture focusses on patriarchs, who begat whom. Really, weren’t Adam and Eve the worst parents in today’s terms. Where were they when Cain was going after Abel; and seriously, they lose Abel, so they replace him with Seth - nice. At any rate, the relationship between Cain and his sister would be similar to what we mean when we say we are all brothers and sisters; it was very different from the relationship between sibs today. I believe that things like that are omitted because they are really of no importance, and someone could imagine that today it would be appropriate to behave in a similar fashion; I think it’s clear that it is not.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Book of Jubilees (non canonical) says he married his twin sister Avan. I think the Book of Jasper too.
But it is obvious that it would have to be either a sister or a niece.
But it is obvious that it would have to be either a sister or a niece.
A
Abu
Guest
What you choose to believe has no necessary bearing on reality.
Fr Charles Carty and Fr Leslie Rumble founded the St. Paul, Minnesota-based Radio Replies Press, and have offered an explanation to your speculation.
The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the parents of the human race.
O
onemangang
Guest
Once again, my position is not at odds here!
Your quote from Humani Generis "polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.,
I do not posit polygenism, but monogenism!
No, biological human was TRUE MAN before Adam.
Adam was the first TRUE MAN, just not biologically!
The lineage of TRUE MAN starts with Adam first!
I do not think TRUE MAN existed before Adam, although I do believe biological humans existed, they were not TRUE MAN, being they did not have a rational intellect, will and spirit breathed into them by God.
Adam was a biological human, who became TRUE MAN, when God breathed the Nephesh into Adam!
Your next quote from Humani Generis "For 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. "
**
This does not contradict my post. It contains very important words true men, so my statement of biological humans, not being true MAN stands, while Adam was the first biological human to become* true man ***.
One can be biologically human, yet not be *** true man ***.
True man has what biological humans lacked, a rational intellect, a will, and a spirit to commune with God.
So, once again, my statement stands, and remains compatible with their being theistic evolution, and a literal person of Adam, upholding the teaching of the Church, and much in line with Catholic thought of Both AND, rather than either or!
So you can see, theistic evolution is not at odds with the creation account!
God bless!
P
Protector
Guest
I think Dawkins was right to quickly point out, what about original sin then
We can have both, and
I think the first, truly human being, was not just physically human, but endowed with a rational intellect, a will, and a Spirit, an innermost part of being where God abides, his name was Adam!
Now then, don’t overestimate my ability to comprehend all of the above.
I’m still trying to come to grips with the fact that Cardinal George Pell seemed unsure, when questioned, as to whether, or not the Bible tells us that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger.
Code:
[youtube.com/watch?v=DmkQdoKILUI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmkQdoKILUI)
F
FrDavid96
Guest
And we can believe (accept, affirm, confess, etc.) all of the above while still understanding that the book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook.
G
grannymh
Guest
For your information. Here is an old thread in the Catholic News Forum. I will not discuss it here, because I respect the ban on evolution discussion.Now then, don’t overestimate my ability to comprehend all of the above.
I’m still trying to come to grips with the fact that Cardinal George Pell seemed unsure, when questioned, as to whether, or not the Bible tells us that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger.
youtube.com/watch?v=DmkQdoKILUI
Protector.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664084&highlight=Cardinal+Pell%2C+Adam+Eve
Here is the transcript of the program… abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm
- Status