Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[Skadi]

97 genes out of 20,000-25,000 human genes were compared.

Because the rest are all known matches. The vast majority of our genes are the same as any other mammal, particularly a primate. For instance our DNA is only several percent removed from a dog. Even conservative estimates put the level of Human to Bonobo DNA similarity at over 98%

 

[grannymh]

Because the rest are all known matches. The vast majority of our genes are the same as any other mammal, particularly a primate. For instance our DNA is only several percent removed from a dog. Even conservative estimates put the level of Human to Bonobo DNA similarity at over 98%

“Because the rest are all known matches.”

Proper citations please.

 

[Skadi]

There is no basis for denying that we are rational human beings. That is why being, goodness, truth, beauty, virtue, honour, ambition, justice, wisdom – these ideas are beyond the grasp of any bodily sense organ. They require a spiritual power to comprehend them. This power is present in a spiritual substance which we call the human soul, present at the moment of conception of the human person. Since they utilize the irreducible complexity of the brain, naturally injury to the brain impairs its function, as do drugs. We are not souls only but bodies with souls. No one assumes that we are spirits only.

Thomas Huxley, who invented the term “agnostic”, seemed to think a little about other matters, on occasion: “The moral progress of society depends not on imitating the cosmic process (i.e. the evolutionary struggle for survival) but on combating it.” (Evolution *and Ethics and Other Essays, *New York, 1914, p 37). Further, with a pre-occupation with the chemistry of space, it seems strange to ignore the fact that science itself arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a strange “speculative theology” that can ignore that fact.

Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.

“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

Brain injuries, tests, exposure to magnetism or medication have been shown to profoundly alter a person’s personality, sense of right and wrong, decision making ability.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).

I don’t know if you understand my point of view so ill restate it.

Whether or not all animals, not just humans, have an immortal soul CAN NOT be judged apon its ability to understand logic or morality, because without sufficient brain power these concepts cannot be understood.

What you have given here seems to SUPPORT what I’m saying. Because a person can suffer brain damage or even be born with defects which cause them to lose their ability to understand morality, it is obvious that a functioning and inteligent brain is necisary to comprehend morality. So if only functioning, high level brain (like a human one) can comprehend morality and comprehending morality is a quality that comes from the soul, you can’t state that animals don’t have immortal souls based solely on their inability to comprehend morality, because they lack sufficient brain power.

A is needed to understand B, and B comes from C.
Because animals lack A they cannot understand B so we cannot say if they do or do not have C, just because they don’t understand B.

And I’m sorry I know that over time the church has funded lots of science but the Chinese were building the Great Wall centuries before Christ, and the seeds of modern math and science are based on pagan philosophers and medicine and math from the golden age of Islam. To claim it developed “in christian europe and nowhere else” is so proposterous that as a history teacher i honestly cant even… realy respond to that. im sorry thats a rediculous claim. The church may have supported science in later years but they still locked away people like Capernicus (and yet the world turned) and others who’s theories disagreed with their interpritation of scripture. Science is not the result of the church or Christianity, they have both helped and hindered it at various times and its foundations go back far before Christ.

But in terms of what your saying philosophically, particularly Nietzsche, I agree. Morality comes from the soul, but only in general fealing. We don’t have a manual of proper action pre-memorized in our head.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know if you understand my point of view so ill restate it.

Whether or not all animals, not just humans, have an immortal soul CAN NOT be judged apon its ability to understand logic or morality, because without sufficient brain power these concepts cannot be understood.

Before judgment is possible, one has to provide the characteristics of the soul in animals and the soul in humans. Please, what are these characteristics. Or if you prefer, what are not the characteristics of the soul in animals and humans.

Here is an example. One characteristic of the spiritual soul is that it is an objective truth. Being an objective fact eliminates dependence on the brain for its origin. This means that the spiritual soul per se is part of human nature period. Because human nature is an unique unification of the spiritual and material, the soul uses the brain as a material means of material communication. Because faults in brain power are material, they do not alter or change the spiritual.

Because a person can suffer brain damage or even be born with defects which cause them to lose their ability to understand morality, it is obvious that a functioning and inteligent brain is necisary to comprehend morality. So if only functioning, high level brain (like a human one) can comprehend morality and comprehending morality is a quality that comes from the soul, you can’t state that animals don’t have immortal souls based solely on their inability to comprehend morality, because they lack sufficient brain power.

As a general reply, common sense would say that the immaterial is not material. Basic principle of non-contradiction. Because the brain can rot and decompose, it, by definition, cannot be considered the same as a spiritual soul.

A is needed to understand B, and B comes from C.
Because animals lack A they cannot understand B so we cannot say if they do or do not have C, just because they don’t understand B.

Before there can be any conclusion, the axioms for A, B, C, need to be provided.

And I’m sorry I know that over time the church has funded lots of science but the Chinese were building the Great Wall centuries before Christ, and the seeds of modern math and science are based on pagan philosophers and medicine and math from the golden age of Islam.

Interesting information.

To claim it developed “in christian europe and nowhere else” is so proposterous that as a history teacher i honestly cant even… realy respond to that.

I would have to see the citation for the “nowhere else” insertion. Perhaps the life of Marco Polo should be returned to general history classes.

im sorry thats a rediculous claim. The church may have supported science in later years but they still locked away people like Capernicus (and yet the world turned) and others who’s theories disagreed with their interpritation of scripture. Science is not the result of the church or Christianity, they have both helped and hindered it at various times and its foundations go back far before Christ.

Interesting information – a tad off the soul topic.

But in terms of what your saying philosophically, particularly Nietzsche, I agree. Morality comes from the soul, but only in general fealing. We don’t have a manual of proper action pre-memorized in our head.

This is the subjective view of morality which is different from the objective morality taught by the Catholic Church. While subjective reasoning can be valid in some cases, I do not view it as explaining the spiritual soul.

 

[Arandur]

And I’m sorry I know that over time the church has funded lots of science but the Chinese were building the Great Wall centuries before Christ, and the seeds of modern math and science are based on pagan philosophers and medicine and math from the golden age of Islam. To claim it developed “in christian europe and nowhere else” is so proposterous that as a history teacher i honestly cant even… realy respond to that. im sorry thats a rediculous claim. The church may have supported science in later years but they still locked away people like Capernicus (and yet the world turned) and others who’s theories disagreed with their interpritation of scripture. Science is not the result of the church or Christianity, they have both helped and hindered it at various times and its foundations go back far before Christ.

You’re a history teacher? I thought you were a sociologist?

I have explored history from MANY leading academics, universities, published works, and courses. In that experience, I find your characterization here a definite throwback to the dark ages of historical propaganda.

I have seen, instead, a consensus view of modern scholars who reject the novel 19th/early 20th century characterization of the Church as opponent of science and learning. After all, the science vs. religion conflict theory didn’t really even come on the scene much until John William Draper.

Western science was an outgrowth of a decidedly Catholic worldview that, while being informed by Greek philosophy (primarily Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates), went beyond them. Given that the Catholic Church invented the university system (and its freedom for intellectual discourse), and was the primary source for funding and advancement of science (with most of the foundational discoveries of Western science coming from clerics), what’s really ridiculous is attacking the Church’s role in this area.

To claim that Chinese and Muslim advances (the latter being after discoveries of the same Greek disciplines) are on par with Western science is demonstrably refuted by the historical and cultural relative lack of progress and success of those cultures’ disciplines compared to the wildly successful advancement of Western science, technology, etc.

Oh well, this is a very big topic for another thread. Suffice to say that the science vs. religion conflict theory is a late novelty, a recent cultural infatuation based on anti-Church propaganda that has little basis in reality. Even Wikipedia authors and sources recognize that. And though the dominant view taught to hapless students has been something similar, and has held the Chinese and Muslims in such high esteem despite the comparative mole-hill of their contributions relative to that of the mountain of those from Christian West, modern, honest historians have discarded the facile view of a “dark ages,” knowledge-suppressing Church as the fiction that it is.

 

[Protector]

Skadi;11789176]
Whether or not all animals, not just humans, have an immortal soul CAN NOT be judged apon its ability to understand logic or morality, because without sufficient brain power these concepts cannot be understood.

The life of an animal is in the blood, hence the Jews were commanded not to consume the blood of an animal. However, the life of the human is in soul,

**“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” **Genesis 2:7

Protector.

 

[edwest2]

Getting back to the topic. If we assume that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, science cannot tell us why. Hominids, meaning human-like creatures, represent a gradually mutating group of human ancestors that are not yet homo sapiens or modern man. Science can only tell us that mutant bio-chemical actions resulted in modern humans after an unknown number of anatomically similar but not quite humans. By definition, science cannot examine a soul. It can only say that purely bio-chemical changes occurred that resulted in structural changes through unguided mutation. Whether human beings are upgrade 207 on the list of hominids that were undergoing self-upgrades, including the brain, through random chance and purely bio-mechanical changes, or not, is all science can say.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skadi]

Before judgment is possible, one has to provide the characteristics of the soul in animals and the soul in humans. Please, what are these characteristics. Or if you prefer, what are not the characteristics of the soul in animals and humans.

Here is an example. One characteristic of the spiritual soul is that it is an objective truth. Being an objective fact eliminates dependence on the brain for its origin. This means that the spiritual soul per se is part of human nature period. Because human nature is an unique unification of the spiritual and material, the soul uses the brain as a material means of material communication. Because faults in brain power are material, they do not alter or change the spiritual.

As a general reply, common sense would say that the immaterial is not material. Basic principle of non-contradiction. Because the brain can rot and decompose, it, by definition, cannot be considered the same as a spiritual soul.

Before there can be any conclusion, the axioms for A, B, C, need to be provided.

Interesting information.

I would have to see the citation for the “nowhere else” insertion. Perhaps the life of Marco Polo should be returned to general history classes.

Interesting information – a tad off the soul topic.

This is the subjective view of morality which is different from the objective morality taught by the Catholic Church. While subjective reasoning can be valid in some cases, I do not view it as explaining the spiritual soul.

Ok let me explain again.

Morality comes from the soul.

All humans have souls.

Some humans cannot grasp morality because of brain damage.

These people still have souls.

Therefore while morality comes from the soul a functioning and very intelligent brain is needed to understand it, because certain people with souls and damaged brains cannot understand morality.

Do you agree? If not then is ask why brain damage can remove this ability. If you agree continue:

Because there are people with souls who cannot grasp morality, being able to understand morality is not a necessity for having a soul.

If one does not need to be capable of comprehending morality to have a soul, the argument that animals lack of morality shows a lack of immortal soul is incorrect, because like a person with a brain injury they lack the high level capacity to understand abstract concepts.

I’m not trying to prove anything, but disprove a previous argument that lack of morality and abstract thought in animals is a sighn of their lacking immortal souls.

 

[Skadi]

You’re a history teacher? I thought you were a sociologist?

I have explored history from MANY leading academics, universities, published works, and courses. In that experience, I find your characterization here a definite throwback to the dark ages of historical propaganda.

I have seen, instead, a consensus view of modern scholars who reject the novel 19th/early 20th century characterization of the Church as opponent of science and learning. After all, the science vs. religion conflict theory didn’t really even come on the scene much until John William Draper.

Western science was an outgrowth of a decidedly Catholic worldview that, while being informed by Greek philosophy (primarily Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates), went beyond them. Given that the Catholic Church invented the university system (and its freedom for intellectual discourse), and was the primary source for funding and advancement of science (with most of the foundational discoveries of Western science coming from clerics), what’s really ridiculous is attacking the Church’s role in this area.

To claim that Chinese and Muslim advances (the latter being after discoveries of the same Greek disciplines) are on par with Western science is demonstrably refuted by the historical and cultural relative lack of progress and success of those cultures’ disciplines compared to the wildly successful advancement of Western science, technology, etc.

Oh well, this is a very big topic for another thread. Suffice to say that the science vs. religion conflict theory is a late novelty, a recent cultural infatuation based on anti-Church propaganda that has little basis in reality. Even Wikipedia authors and sources recognize that. And though the dominant view taught to hapless students has been something similar, and has held the Chinese and Muslims in such high esteem despite the comparative mole-hill of their contributions relative to that of the mountain of those from Christian West, modern, honest historians have discarded the facile view of a “dark ages,” knowledge-suppressing Church as the fiction that it is.

I am a history teacher with a minor in sociology. I would like to see these references.

Just as civilizations rise and fall so do their advancements in science. The Chinese had gunpowder 900 years before Europeans ever saw cannon, and Algebra was created durring the golden age of Islam in the Middle East. The Caliphate was the wealthiest and most advanced empire on earth while Europe still lay in squalor, and Muslim physicians were renowned, being the source of most medical knowledge that Europeans later built on. However, the invention of new sailing craft that allowed sailed travel from Europe to the Far East and the discovery of America significantly undermined the economy of the Muslim world and eliminated the Silk Road. The Ottoman Empire, the most powerful and advanced nation in the world in 1500, was the “Sick man of Europe” just a few centuries later. European colonialism and trade brought an influx of wealth which improved the lives of individuals greatly and allowed greater focus on science.

I will again state that at various times the church helped or hindered science and if you disagree with that I suggest you take it up with the man who lived his remaining days in house arrest for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[edwest2]

Back to the topic, scientists have not connected morality to an immaterial thing. They can only study material mechanisms and the ‘output’ of such mechanisms. From a course outline:

"Evolutionary Biology

“From an evolutionary perspective, morality is a puzzling phenomenon: Why are people fair with each other? Why do they help people they will never see? Why are they being honest when they could be cheating?”

"Evolutionary Psychology

“How does evolution help explaining moral psychology? How can we relate reciprocity and cooperation with concepts such as rights and duties? How can we explain the condemnation of harmless behaviors like homosexuality or drug consumption?”

"Comparative Psychology

“Is morality a uniquely human phenomenon? What is the difference between human cooperation and primate cooperation? Is partner choice at work in human societies?”

"Cognitive Neuroscience

What are the neuronal bases of morality? How emotions influence moral judgments? Are there different networks for consequentialist and deontological judgments? How do humans integrate different types of information?"

"Cognitive Psychology

What are the principles of morality? Is empathy a moral emotion? Why do human depart from utilitarianism? Is moral cognition defective?"

"Developmental Psychology

“If morality is a cognitive adaptation, humans should be prepared to develop moral intuitions. To what degree is morality encoded in human nature? If morality is innate, what do children learn throughout their development?”

So science cannot use the soul as a working mechanism. The only direction for study are materialist explanations.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sudsam648]

Yes Virginia, there were an Adam and Eve. 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.
No Adam no original sin, so, “…eat, drink, be merry!” (Lk 12:19)
Peace, Fr. S

 

[Abu]

Skadi #301
And I’m sorry I know that over time the church has funded lots of science but the Chinese were building the Great Wall centuries before Christ, and the seeds of modern math and science are based on pagan philosophers and medicine and math from the golden age of Islam. To claim it developed “in christian europe and nowhere else” is so proposterous that as a history teacher i honestly cant even… realy respond to that. im sorry thats a rediculous claim. The church may have supported science in later years but they still locked away people like Capernicus (and yet the world turned) and others who’s theories disagreed with their interpritation of scripture. Science is not the result of the church or Christianity, they have both helped and hindered it at various times and its foundations go back far before Christ.
#307
take it up with the man who lived his remaining days in house arrest for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

Since the Church has been impugned re Her teaching and unscientific attitudes attributed to Her, the reality needs to be reemphasized.

Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible. He was wrong in his physics. From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities – that most Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology. The system of Copernicus was never denounced.

“It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe — the so-called Dark Ages.”

“The earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of imperial China, let alone those of pre-historic times, do not constitute science and are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning, or simply knowledge.” (For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark, Princeton University Press, 2003, p 125).

In Science and Creation Father Stanley Jaki lists seven great cultures in which science suffered a “stillbirth” – Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya – they did not have the Catholic conception of the divine. Fr Jaki emphasises that “nature had to be de-animized” for science to be born. (Creation and Scientific Creativity, Paul Haffner, Christendom Press, 1991, p 41).

“During the twelfth century in Latin Europe those aspects of Judeo-Christian thought which emphasized the idea of creation out of nothing and the distance between God and the world, in certain contexts and with certain men, had the effect of eliminating all semi-divine entities from the realm of nature.”

Re Galileo and science, “John Henry Cardinal Newman, the celebrated 19th-century convert from Anglicanism, found it revealing that this is practically the only example that ever comes to mind." (See: How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 67, 93).

 

[Arandur]

I am a history teacher with a minor in sociology. I would like to see these references.

References too numerous. We really should have another thread for this–there probably are some already. Heck, Wikipedia is pretty rich in sources that support my statements; just check religion vs. science, or investigate Conflict Theory–a modern propagandist invention.

Another good place to start (and probably the majority of where my full courses came from) are a few dozen courses offered through the Modern Scholar and Teaching Company (The Great Courses). Both of those companies produce full-length courses from leading professors from major universities–well-published professors, well-referenced courses.

Just as civilizations rise and fall so do their advancements in science. The Chinese had gunpowder 900 years before Europeans ever saw cannon, and Algebra was created durring the golden age of Islam in the Middle East. The Caliphate was the wealthiest and most advanced empire on earth while Europe still lay in squalor, and Muslim physicians were renowned, being the source of most medical knowledge that Europeans later built on. However, the invention of new sailing craft that allowed sailed travel from Europe to the Far East and the discovery of America significantly undermined the economy of the Muslim world and eliminated the Silk Road. The Ottoman Empire, the most powerful and advanced nation in the world in 1500, was the “Sick man of Europe” just a few centuries later. European colonialism and trade brought an influx of wealth which improved the lives of individuals greatly and allowed greater focus on science.

Mole-hills versus the mountains from European science–starting much earlier than you suggest, more like not long after the turn of the millenia (well before the discovery of the new world or the decline of the Ottoman Empire). The foundations of science and natural philosophy were established in Catholic Europe long before then. Just look at lists of early “fathers of science;” compare the number of Western Europeans, Christians, even Catholic clergy, to others.

I will again state that at various times the church helped or hindered science and if you disagree with that I suggest you take it up with the man who lived his remaining days in house arrest for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

The “hindrance” was so minor and the help so great that they just don’t compare, particularly if stood against other cultures.

As soon as people trot out Galileo, Giordano Bruno, or the Inquisition or Crusades for that matter, I am usually quite accurate in identifying how influenced by popular propaganda rather than real history they are.

The Galileo affair–one of the very few instances of anything of the sort in the Catholic world–was very complicated, and had little to do with his scientific propositions. Which were supported by a pope friend of his, by the way.

Anyway, we are getting further afield, and this really belongs in another thread. Sorry for taking us further from the questions at hand. I’m just sensitive to this particular topic, having fallen for conflict theory in the past and had my world shaken by the discovery of how false it was (a discovery I gleaned from predominately non-Catholic historians).

 

[Arandur]

Morality comes from the soul.

Is that your assertion, or are you proposing it to characterize an opposing argument? You mentioned it before, so I’m confused now.

All humans have souls.

Is there any difference between human, animal, plant, bacterial souls, in your opinion?

Because there are people with souls who cannot grasp morality, being able to understand morality is not a necessity for having a soul.

If one does not need to be capable of comprehending morality to have a soul, the argument that animals lack of morality shows a lack of immortal soul is incorrect, because like a person with a brain injury they lack the high level capacity to understand abstract concepts.

So a functioning, higher order brain AND a rational soul are required for morality to be exhibited.

This does not demonstrate that animals without a sufficient brain have such a rational soul. I would ask, “what’s the point?” (of being a species having a rational soul but the inability to express it)?

So there are mice, insects, grasses, and bacteria with rational souls out there, they just will all go to waste for lack of sufficient physical equipment to use them.

I think I see where you’re going, as the only way to reconcile this–towards that pantheistic/animistic conglomerate soul expressed through whatever outlet it can find. Along with that is a rejection of the individual, and individual worth.

Which brings me also to the other disturbing part of your assertions: you claim that it is a terrible injustice to arrogantly place human beings above other organisms because of a difference of soul, while recognizing yourself a vast difference in intelligence coming from physical capabilities.

To me, this looks like now people and things must either be valued according to the worth and capability of their physical beings (a monstrosity inflicted on the world by countless tyrannical regimes and ideologies in human history), a dissolution of all individual worth and dignity (equal to the necessary result of materialistic atheism, rendering the discussion of “soul” moot, anyway), or a reduction of all individual worth and dignity to that of the lowest life form with an animate soul (a bacterium, I would presume, unless you consider viruses alive, as well).

To switch gears, EdWest, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. That science has no place or worth (at least in discussion of human origins) because it cannot remark on the immaterial? You don’t think it has a place even describing the biological aspect of our beings?

 

[grannymh]

Regarding
Morality comes from the soul.

Is that your assertion, or are you proposing it to characterize an opposing argument? You mentioned it before, so I’m confused now.

Perhaps confusion comes from the fact that when one talks about morality coming from the soul — that is subjective reasoning. Objective reasoning would be that the human person is worthy of profound respect. From that point, I wonder if morality exists because the first human being, known as Adam, respected his Creator from an objective point of few.

Considering that subjective reasoning reigns today, is it possible to trace objective reasoning to its source? Seems to me that the source could be one person interacting with God Who, as Creator, would be the Person Who established morality.
Genesis 3: 15-17 can be viewed as objective morality because it distinguishes right from wrong independently from the thoughts and feelings of Adam.

Going further, the best way to establish the primacy of objective thinking would be to establish it with the first human. So, let us complete the circle which begins with God and ends with God as described in Genesis, first three chapters. The result of this circular reasoning is that now there is another position in which there had to be one first human, Adam.

 

[cthomp1961]

I think sometimes it just boils down to Faith and accepting … Mark 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up, take up your stretcher, and walk?’

No scientific explanation can be obtained, He ended up walking home…Sometimes you just have to TRUST…The mysteries of GOD…

 

[Arandur]

Kemp argues for theological monogenism, but it’s also interesting how he addresses the issue of souls:

Science, Theology, and Monogenesis

BRILLIANT. I highly suggest reading this–Grannymh and EdWest, you in particular may like this.

Or maybe not. After all, I proposed exactly the same solution independently 1 or 2 years ago in a similar thread here, and response was tepid.

But perhaps hearing it from someone else, in a much more refined and well-referenced fashion than my posts, and that it was essentially first proposed 40 years ago, might be more convincing.

The solution proposed has many merits, among them:

1. Provides for sufficient genetic diversity (and indeed is compatible with virtually any possibility of human origins from current scientific hypotheses).
2. Matches common (and Biblical) senses of royalty and royal lineage.
3. Fits with the Genesis accounts for:
   –“forming” man and then “breathing” into him a rational soul, creating a “living soul”
   –Cain and his people in the East
   –Makes clearer some interpretations of the Nephelim
4. Corresponds well with the results of Original Sin–human pride, lusts, and desire for power over others
5. Maintains (is founded on) the essential difference of the human soul
6. Provides an explanation for why the rest of our physical, biological makeup seems continuous with other organisms (no miraculous introduction of a new genetic blank slate, and conservation of genetic evidence from environmental factors like diseases and viruses, despite the state of Original Justice)
7. Even helps address Skadi’s problem with higher order brains vs. rational souls, the differences in souls, etc.

It still does not resolve these issues (but I think these are minor and easily resolved in other ways quite compatible with this idea):
A. Literal Genesis accounts of age of the earth and humanity (it makes no statement or requirement about this)
B. Location of the Garden of Eden (it makes no statement or requirement about this)
C. The Flood and ensuing bottleneck if the human population were reduced solely to Noah’s family (though it gives another example for the “need” for a Flood)

 

[grannymh]

BRILLIANT. I highly suggest reading this–Grannymh and EdWest, you in particular may like this.

Thank you for recommending the article “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis”.
I am always looking for sources of information. As I recall, when the article was first published, it did not address the issue of bestiality. Thanks for the reminder to check that.

A current, but brief, theological and scientific analysis of the reality of Adam and Eve is found in
Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.

 

[Arandur]

It does address the issue of bestiality, briefly.
Moreover, it seems fairly consistent with the common relic among human communities (such as even the Greeks) to conclude that other humans are sub-human, animals even–and yet they still interbreed, even though that may be considered distasteful or illegal in the culture.

Additionally, I forgot to mention another merit:
8. It potentially avoids the need for any special dispensation for incest. Thus marital law could remain consistent.

If you are disturbed by the possibility of intercourse between humans with rational souls and biologically-identical hominid relatives, I would also have to ask why the different standard on incest? Which is worse, and, granted a dispensation towards one or the other might have been necessary, why would a special dispensation be improper in one case and not the other?

As I’ve said, there also seems to be numerous instances in Genesis of likely support for such a theory. If the possibility disturbs you, one might ask about the “sons of heaven” (Adam and Eve’s children, those possessing rational souls) having intercourse with “daughters of man” (in this case, other homo sapiens sapiens, possessing sensitive souls but not fully rational). This seems to specifically address intercourse between two distinct peoples. Unquestionably, that passage at least identifies a significant distinction between the two peoples, though it has been interpreted in many different ways.

 

[jeb53]

I’m glad to see your sunny smile.

This older than dirt, cranky (feminine of snarky) granny did notice that you did not provide any thoughtful, reasonable, adult level conversation about the comments on post 55. If a logical discussion is preferable, you can simply scroll to the last sentence.

I do apologize in advance for not reading all 50 chapters of the book of Genesis. I absolutely will not do Noah. And since I did not study the first three chapters of Genesis when I first learned flat out Catholic doctrines regarding events at the dawn of human history, I am having a delightful, energizing time digging through those initial chapters.

On the other hand, it is o.k. if you bypass my post. You certainly are not expected to discuss everything posted. And for a lot of people, the weekend can be a busy time.
Plus, I never discuss everything so it is a tad silly to expect that of others.

Those sweet first human beings, especially Adam, are so fascinating that I cannot understand how they could be some kind of spiritual truth symbol instead of blood and guts.

A really snarky post.
The man who you are referring to is a priest.