G
Gorgias
Guest
Human jurisprudence isn’t immune to politics and human silliness.
- Status
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
And when did either of those words become synonymous with “belief”?
R
Richca
Guest
Excuse me, but I believe the post I made is extremely relevant to the topic under discussion. Perhaps you haven’t been following the discussion. The bible as well as the Church teaches that the whole human race descended from one stock, namely, Adam. All the true evidence is not in contradiction to the Bible but actually supports it. Accordingly, following the proper rules for the interpretation of Holy Scripture found in Tradition and the teaching of the popes including Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, there is no reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense concerning the immediate creation of the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground as well as the immediate creation of Eve from the rib or side of Adam.
G
Glark
Guest
When science is placed above Scripture it becomes a god.
G
Glark
Guest
A 475-million year-old fossil? Yeah, right … according to the arbitrary time-frame invented by evolutionsts.
G
Glark
Guest
It is not a Protestant product - about 99.99% of Catholics who ever lived believed in a literal “six days” of creation.
Evolution is obviously a product of atheism. Belief in biological evolution goes back at least 2500 years and is therefore not a product of modern “science”.
G
Glark
Guest
… which is hardly surprising - they ignore Scripture as well. Science knows best … apparently.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Oh, you must mean that “plain data” that is presented for public consumption by an evolutionist cult that is inspired by demons. Sorry, I’m not so gullible and naive as to swallow their propaganda.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Alas, I can forgive you, but certainly do not excuse you. You reiterate your personal opinion; with which I disagree. You do not address your statements that evolutionists “want to reduce all living things as coming from a single first cell” and that they “can’t wrap their mind around the creationist’s belief.” Neither of these statements is true, and neither of them is supported by your ‘excuse’. In failing to address my criticisms, you perpetuate another typical Creationist behaviour, that of responding to one question with the answer to a different one, as if they were the same.
Are there any honest Creationists?
R
Richca
Guest
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
In your interpretation of the natural law concerning brother-sister marriages especially as it concerns the propagation of the human race in its beginnings which required brother-sister marriages in keeping with the unity of the human race, and as I mentioned in a prior post, I think you are still stuck between a rock and a hard place which is going to require some sort of resolution in keeping with the catholic faith. Your other proposal for the propagation of the human race involves bestiality. So either way you look at this in your view, namely, whether sister/brother marriages or bestialty (assuming God would indeed infuse a human soul into some imaginary beast upon mating) we have God’s plan for the propagation of the human race involving sexual sin of the worst kind against nature (bestiality) or in your interpretation of the natural law concerning brother-sister marriages another sin albeit not as bad as bestiality. This is an absurdity and it reduces man created in the image and likeness of God to the likeness of a beast and by extension God himself in a way.
In your interpretation of the natural law concerning brother-sister marriages especially as it concerns the propagation of the human race in its beginnings which required brother-sister marriages in keeping with the unity of the human race, and as I mentioned in a prior post, I think you are still stuck between a rock and a hard place which is going to require some sort of resolution in keeping with the catholic faith. Your other proposal for the propagation of the human race involves bestiality. So either way you look at this in your view, namely, whether sister/brother marriages or bestialty (assuming God would indeed infuse a human soul into some imaginary beast upon mating) we have God’s plan for the propagation of the human race involving sexual sin of the worst kind against nature (bestiality) or in your interpretation of the natural law concerning brother-sister marriages another sin albeit not as bad as bestiality. This is an absurdity and it reduces man created in the image and likeness of God to the likeness of a beast and by extension God himself in a way.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
Yes, Pope Pius XII was not proposing a change in the Church’s traditional belief concerning the immediate creation of Adam formed of dust from the ground nor the immediate creation of Eve from Adam’s rib or side which he in fact reiterated in a speech he gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about 9 years before Humani Generis. What Pope Pius XII said about ‘research and discussions’ involving the origin of man’s body from pre-existent living matter should be read in the light of the entire encyclical which among other things mentions erroneous evolutionist philosophies, the perennial philosophy of the Church especially the teaching and doctrine of St Thomas Aquinas, unchangable essences, the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the proper rules to follow in interpreting it.Gorgias:
And when did either of those words become synonymous with “belief”?
B
bobperk
Guest
I have posted before, but will post again here. My belief is that, based on the Scriptural evidence alone, the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally. I draw this conclusion from the fact that the Assumption, despite both indirect and scant Scriptural evidence, is dogma. It would be one thing if the creation of Adam and Eve was described only in Genesis, and one could perhaps make a case for a “symbolic” interpretation. However, that is not the case. The direct creation of Adam is recounted not only in Genesis, but is also directly referenced or alluded to in 1 Chronicles 1, Tobit 8:6, Wisdom 10:1, Sirach 33:10, 40:1 and 49:6, Hosea 6:7, 2 Maccabees 7:28, Luke 3:38, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2, and Jude 1:14. These citations are much above and beyond any Scriptural reference to the Assumption and, combined with the historical traditional interpretation of direct creation of our first parents, a case could certainly be made to proclaim the direct creation of them, body and soul, as adults, as required for belief.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Excellent, Bobperk. You have a belief, and reasons for it. And that’s fine. From your earlier posts I know that you do not believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. And that’s fine too.
I myself disagree with you, but I do not find that you have misrepresented me here, or selected extracts from evolutionist scientists in an attempt to show that they do not in fact believe in evolution, or declared that all evolutionists are atheists, or endlessly asked questions about evolution that you do not want answered, merely in the hope that, in not getting an answer to them, you somehow demonstrate that they are unanswerable, and that therefore evolution is untenable. I do not find that you have boldly stated something false as a evolutionist belief, and then proceeded to demonstrate its falseness as if so to do was to falsify evolution, and I do not find that you have misrepresented science by misusing words like proof, empirical, hypothesis and theory.
I think that’s wonderful, and, in this thread, rather unusual.
Perhaps you are the honest Creationist I have been looking for!
I myself disagree with you, but I do not find that you have misrepresented me here, or selected extracts from evolutionist scientists in an attempt to show that they do not in fact believe in evolution, or declared that all evolutionists are atheists, or endlessly asked questions about evolution that you do not want answered, merely in the hope that, in not getting an answer to them, you somehow demonstrate that they are unanswerable, and that therefore evolution is untenable. I do not find that you have boldly stated something false as a evolutionist belief, and then proceeded to demonstrate its falseness as if so to do was to falsify evolution, and I do not find that you have misrepresented science by misusing words like proof, empirical, hypothesis and theory.
I think that’s wonderful, and, in this thread, rather unusual.
Perhaps you are the honest Creationist I have been looking for!
T
Techno2000
Guest
Give bobperk a chance, he will probably disappoint you too.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I do not place Science over scripture. I just do not regard Scripture as scientific and I do not think Scripture is supposed to be a commentary or an instruction manual on how the natural world functions. I also do not have to agree with how you interpret Scripture since Scripture interpretation is a function of the Magisterium of the Church and not yours.
B
buffalo
Guest
God could have created and inserted Adam and Eve in the timeline wherever he wished. They were specially created.
B
bobperk
Guest
Thanks, Hugh. My point is - aside from one’s take on evolution or creationism - if we apply the same standard of evidence to the creation of Adam and Eve as to what was used to declare the Assumption a required belief, it would seem that there is really no choice but to accept the Scriptural and traditional view that Adam and Eve were created as described in Genesis.
The Assumption is a declared dogma based on relatively few Scriptural allusions and types combined with theological speculation. There were no eyewitnesses to it and no way to prove it using science.
Belief in the entire universe created ex nihilo is a requirement of faith, clearly described throughout Scripture and unable to be scientifically replicated, but obviously able to be studied by science.
We do assert to the creation and belief of two first parents, but current teaching allows for an interpretation of a pre-rational Adam and Eve to become “infused” with human souls and thus becoming made “in the image of God.” But this interpretation does not align with Sacred Scripture and seems to separate God from material creation; it seems to me an erroneous and skeptical approach to God’s power. I can be open to some limited forms of evolution in regards to other animals, but, since we do have the “option” to believe so, the most sensible view to me is to accept Adam as formed from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side. “Formed in the image of God” to me implies the creation of the entire person, both in body and soul. Now, scientific evidence does indicate that biologically similar humans have existed for a long time. But I see no reason why that would preclude God from instantaneously forming Adam if He so wished. For if He could do so over millions of years, He could also do so in a fraction of time if He so desired. Our concept of time is very hindered by our mortality, so whether something takes millions of years or a few seconds is inconsequential to God. We need to be open to these mysteries.
The Assumption is a declared dogma based on relatively few Scriptural allusions and types combined with theological speculation. There were no eyewitnesses to it and no way to prove it using science.
Belief in the entire universe created ex nihilo is a requirement of faith, clearly described throughout Scripture and unable to be scientifically replicated, but obviously able to be studied by science.
We do assert to the creation and belief of two first parents, but current teaching allows for an interpretation of a pre-rational Adam and Eve to become “infused” with human souls and thus becoming made “in the image of God.” But this interpretation does not align with Sacred Scripture and seems to separate God from material creation; it seems to me an erroneous and skeptical approach to God’s power. I can be open to some limited forms of evolution in regards to other animals, but, since we do have the “option” to believe so, the most sensible view to me is to accept Adam as formed from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side. “Formed in the image of God” to me implies the creation of the entire person, both in body and soul. Now, scientific evidence does indicate that biologically similar humans have existed for a long time. But I see no reason why that would preclude God from instantaneously forming Adam if He so wished. For if He could do so over millions of years, He could also do so in a fraction of time if He so desired. Our concept of time is very hindered by our mortality, so whether something takes millions of years or a few seconds is inconsequential to God. We need to be open to these mysteries.
G
Glark
Guest
On a scale of -10 to +10, how would you rate my honesty?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
All very sensible, and indeed, to the vast majority of posters on this whole site, whose expertise in the questions they have difficulty with is minimal, your advice - follow the official teaching - is unquestionably the best way to resolve ones difficulties. However, wherever someone has a detailed knowledge of an area where it appears “the Catholic Church” doesn’t, a conflict can arise. The difference between current scientific thinking about evolution and the Church’s official position on Adam and Eve is one such area.
I have no doubt that humans as we know them evolved from a group of African hominids over many thousands of years, many thousands of years ago. At no point during that period would it have been possible to say, “This one’s got a soul and this one hasn’t.” Our concept of the soul is based on a clear dichotomy between humans and non-humans, which, although perfectly clear today, was a meaningless concept two hundred thousand years ago.
Many people feel that this information, which although not wholly confirmed is looking more and more likely to be a demonstrable history as fossil studies improve, must spell the destruction of the theology of the soul, the fall, redemption, and the entire edifice of the Christian faith. They are wrong, but I think it is largely fear of this that has prompted the upsurge of specifically “Creationist” ideas in the last couple of centuries, and the notion that Evolution is an essentially atheist philosophy. Actually such a fear is unjustified, and rejection of evolution (fortunately) unnecessary for the continuation of Christianity.
Nevertheless, the theology of the soul must be, and is being, carefully repositioned in the light of advances in historical knowledge. Should it be felt necessary, an encyclical explaining this will no doubt be promulgated shortly. The point is, of course, that what happened thousands of years ago should not necessarily direct the behaviour of people living today. Whatever happened then, today we can appreciate a qualitative difference between ourselves and the rest of creation, and the need to address the possibilities for good or evil presented by the type of self-knowledge we believe that we humans, exclusively, possess. Most people, including most Catholics, are perfectly aware of this, which is why Creationism is such a minority enthusiasm.
I have no doubt that humans as we know them evolved from a group of African hominids over many thousands of years, many thousands of years ago. At no point during that period would it have been possible to say, “This one’s got a soul and this one hasn’t.” Our concept of the soul is based on a clear dichotomy between humans and non-humans, which, although perfectly clear today, was a meaningless concept two hundred thousand years ago.
Many people feel that this information, which although not wholly confirmed is looking more and more likely to be a demonstrable history as fossil studies improve, must spell the destruction of the theology of the soul, the fall, redemption, and the entire edifice of the Christian faith. They are wrong, but I think it is largely fear of this that has prompted the upsurge of specifically “Creationist” ideas in the last couple of centuries, and the notion that Evolution is an essentially atheist philosophy. Actually such a fear is unjustified, and rejection of evolution (fortunately) unnecessary for the continuation of Christianity.
Nevertheless, the theology of the soul must be, and is being, carefully repositioned in the light of advances in historical knowledge. Should it be felt necessary, an encyclical explaining this will no doubt be promulgated shortly. The point is, of course, that what happened thousands of years ago should not necessarily direct the behaviour of people living today. Whatever happened then, today we can appreciate a qualitative difference between ourselves and the rest of creation, and the need to address the possibilities for good or evil presented by the type of self-knowledge we believe that we humans, exclusively, possess. Most people, including most Catholics, are perfectly aware of this, which is why Creationism is such a minority enthusiasm.
Last edited:
- Status