E
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Incest is the children was necessary in the beginning and is not intrinsically evil. In addition, the mutational load was not significant. Incest from parent to child is always intrinsically evil.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics actually do read Scripture literally, that is what the author intended to convey.
There has been clear and consistent understanding of Genesis since the beginning. We are all descended from an original pair. Also, Eve was created from Adam’s side.
B
buffalo
Guest
Pope Pius XII said: "Only from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man (Gen 2:23)
S
Startingcatholic
Guest
Thanks everyone for answering my question about incest but what about my question about Cain?
P
PetraG
Guest
The Scriptures say that we all have Adam and Eve as parents. It does not say that we ONLY have Adam and Eve as parents.
Even biologists postulate a “genetic Adam,” who would be the single male who is in the lineage of all humankind. They aren’t implying that this is the only fully human male alive in his own time. They’re implying that there is no other man to whom all males now surviving can trace ancestry through the male line.
It is besides my point, by the way, whether there are biological mechanisms, whether known or unknown, that make their hypothesis untenable. I am saying that all men could trace their ancestry through the male line to a single male without that man being the only male alive and begetting children in his own time. No, they’re saying this male they are referring to is the only male whose male line was unbroken through time such that all males trace back to him. No male farther back than he would have had at least one male born in every generation to carry on his Y chromosome forward in time.
Likewise, all humanity could trace lineage back to a single couple EITHER in the same way as a nearly-extinct species of any animal could be brought back from a single pair to a full population–adding genetic variation along the way by random mutations within the population–OR as the ancestor couple to every living human being without being the only ancestors to contribute genetic material. In either case, we would all trace our lineage back to that single couple.
The truth is that we trace lineage back to that single couple. Scripture implies but does not say that other humans might have been around to supply marriage partners (and enemies) to Cain. It is also possible that Cain foresaw that any of his relatives could want to even the score on account of his murder of their uncle Abel, as Cain certainly hoped to live long enough that his nephews, grandnephews, great-grandnephews and so on would be old enough to do that.
I have to think that because Holy Scriptures aren’t clear about it, it is not terribly important. What is important is that you look at every other human being and see that you are literally a relative to them through our first parents. All other people are subject to the Fall and all are heirs to the redemptive Incarnation and Redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore persons to whom the Gospel ought to be preached, persons made in the image and likeness of God, persons who ought to be seen in their need as having the face of Christ Himself.
Even biologists postulate a “genetic Adam,” who would be the single male who is in the lineage of all humankind. They aren’t implying that this is the only fully human male alive in his own time. They’re implying that there is no other man to whom all males now surviving can trace ancestry through the male line.
It is besides my point, by the way, whether there are biological mechanisms, whether known or unknown, that make their hypothesis untenable. I am saying that all men could trace their ancestry through the male line to a single male without that man being the only male alive and begetting children in his own time. No, they’re saying this male they are referring to is the only male whose male line was unbroken through time such that all males trace back to him. No male farther back than he would have had at least one male born in every generation to carry on his Y chromosome forward in time.
Likewise, all humanity could trace lineage back to a single couple EITHER in the same way as a nearly-extinct species of any animal could be brought back from a single pair to a full population–adding genetic variation along the way by random mutations within the population–OR as the ancestor couple to every living human being without being the only ancestors to contribute genetic material. In either case, we would all trace our lineage back to that single couple.
The truth is that we trace lineage back to that single couple. Scripture implies but does not say that other humans might have been around to supply marriage partners (and enemies) to Cain. It is also possible that Cain foresaw that any of his relatives could want to even the score on account of his murder of their uncle Abel, as Cain certainly hoped to live long enough that his nephews, grandnephews, great-grandnephews and so on would be old enough to do that.
I have to think that because Holy Scriptures aren’t clear about it, it is not terribly important. What is important is that you look at every other human being and see that you are literally a relative to them through our first parents. All other people are subject to the Fall and all are heirs to the redemptive Incarnation and Redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore persons to whom the Gospel ought to be preached, persons made in the image and likeness of God, persons who ought to be seen in their need as having the face of Christ Himself.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
So how did the author of Genesis know this way back then?
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church is and has been really clear.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
The biological concept of a “genetic Adam” has nothing to do with the literal Adam and Eve.
Let’s say, for instance, that all males now alive could trace their Y chromosome back to Noah. He would be the “genetic Adam,” because by definition it is the male who is most recently in the lineage of all males. To refer to that person as a sort of “Adam” was a kind of whimsy; it was never meant to have religious implications. (There are definitely biologists out there who wish that bit of whimsy had never been used, because it has lead to confusion…)
More to the point, though, there isn’t any evidence that Genesis was meant as a science textbook. Why would it be? Scientific knowledge is not necessary for a life of holiness. It is useful for doing work that some people may be given to do by Providence, but it wasn’t necessary for the fidelity of life of the people of faith for whom Genesis was always intended.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis transcends science. Science is catching up to its truth.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’re seriously going to assert that the Church teaches that its moral theology gets thrown out the window and replaced with a morality of “the ends justify the means” when it’s convenient to do so?
We don’t read in the Bible that God had forbid it in the time of Lot, and yet, we read that his daughters have to get him drunk in order to put in motion their plan of incest. The tenor of that story is that it’s wrong. So… why wouldn’t it be wrong in the time of our first human parents?
MRCA doesn’t propose a single-source or attempt to support any such theories. It simply points to the common ancestor of currently living human beings.
So incest only became evil? It was originally good? C’mon…
Are we going to start going around and around again about the immutability of God’s Divine Moral Law?
Apples and oranges. There’s a world of difference between marrying a half-sibling and a full blood sibling.
We’ve been around that issue a few times. God’s divine moral law is immutable (whether or not human laws have been written up to walk in lock-step).
When you’re wearing a mitre, then things will be different. Until then, gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
How did the author of Genesis know what? That a couple millennia later, there were be genetic statisticians who would develop the concept of “the most recent common male ancestor of currently living humans”?
Here’s the thing: the questions you’re asking are really questions that should be prefaced with “if it’s the case that the first few chapters of Genesis are literal, historical fact, then how could it be that…?”
Folks who believe that we’re looking at a figurative account will respond to you “it’s not literal; it’s not necessarily the case that Adam and Eve were the only living hominins – therefore, Cain could have been talking about others.”
On the other hand, folks who want to believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are literally, scientifically, historically accurate will answer… well, they won’t answer. You see what answers you’ve gotten here from them, right?
B
buffalo
Guest
Consanguinity
Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve, it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature; otherwise the propagation of thehuman race would have begun by violation of the natural law.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
B
buffalo
Guest
Why Incest in Genesis Was OK
That Cain and Abel married their sisters is also logically inferred from the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Original sin is passed on to all human beings from our first parents, Adam and Eve. As St. Paul says, “Sin came into the world through one man” (Rom. 5:12; see Rom. 5:19-20 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 402-06).The typical response is, “How could God sanction incest, even if only for a limited time?” The short answer to your question is yes because, unlike fornication and adultery, there is nothing morally wrong with intermarriage within the first generation of offspring for Adam and Eve. They had no choice of spouse except their siblings.
Last edited:
F
Fragile
Guest
" soulless biologically compatible hominoids"
J
JerryZ
Guest
That however assumes that these “compatible hominids” were available.
One also has to be, keenly aware that, when interbreeding 2 different species,
even closely related, their offspring may be barren and unsuitable for further procreation.
One also has to be, keenly aware that, when interbreeding 2 different species,
even closely related, their offspring may be barren and unsuitable for further procreation.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You realize that this is the logical fallacy of ‘circular reasoning’, right?
(Specifically, it’s the “begging the question” form of circular reasoning.)
Again, circular reasoning: “incest for Adam & Eve’s children was ok because… incest was ok for Adam & Eve’s children.”
It still all boils down to an argument that asserts “if Genesis is literally, historically true, then all of the unpalatable side effects must be ok.”
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s the whole point, though – they wouldn’t be “two different species”. The assertion is that they’d have been biologically identical species.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is most logical that if God created Adam and Eve and told them to multiply, it is not intrinsically evil. Being the only two individuals it is obvious.
A
Atreju
Guest
Just as a point of clarification, when biologists and geneticists talk about a “genetic adam” or “genetic eve”, they are talking about a most recent common patrilineal or matrilineal ancestor. Meaning the most recent person for whom everyone could claim ancestry through their father’s father’s father’s… father or mother’s mother’s mother’s… mother. They do not mean that these are the first people, they had parents. And there are other people existing at the same time who were the ancestors of almost everyone.
People are a lot more interrelated than I think people realize. Mathematically, everyone has 2^n lines of ancestry, where n is the number of generations. Supposing a 25 year generation that means everyone living now has over a trillion lines of ancestry going back just a thousand years. This is why basically everyone with even a bit of European ancestry can trace their ancestry to Charlemagne, just a matter of documentation.
People are a lot more interrelated than I think people realize. Mathematically, everyone has 2^n lines of ancestry, where n is the number of generations. Supposing a 25 year generation that means everyone living now has over a trillion lines of ancestry going back just a thousand years. This is why basically everyone with even a bit of European ancestry can trace their ancestry to Charlemagne, just a matter of documentation.
- Status