F
FiveLinden
Guest
We are DNA with plants too.Are they fully human?
Descendants of Adam and Eve mated with pre-humans?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
D
Dlee
Guest
It makes me chuckle when folks say Adam and Eve only had two sons (Cain and Abel.) Genesis also tells us they had a son Seth. Just because others are not mentioned doesn’t mean there were no additional sons and daughters. We need to remember that every detail is not contained in the Bible.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
We’re all animals in the physical sense. Why infer that non-rational homosapiens are beasts?
Of course there is. I gave it in the post you’re replying to.
T
tafan2
Guest
I do not think anyone on this thread has said that Adam and Eve did not have many children.
T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, but we are not talking about a purely physical sense. The difference between us and animals is that we have a rational, immortal soul. Animals do not. So Adam and Eve, and their descendants were not animals, the contemporaneous “proto-hums” were animals.
E
EndTimes
Guest
“” This becomes more credible if we assume that Adam had two natural “almost-human” parents, and that the creation story (“dust of the earth”) is just an allegory. “”
Related: Within Scriptures and Magisterium, The Church teaches that Adam is THE first parent of Man. and Genesis is not a “myth”… Original Sin is a True Foundation connected with Redeemer Jesus Christ…
Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis - (Warnings against False Theories re: Man’s Origins)
Related: Within Scriptures and Magisterium, The Church teaches that Adam is THE first parent of Man. and Genesis is not a “myth”… Original Sin is a True Foundation connected with Redeemer Jesus Christ…
Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis - (Warnings against False Theories re: Man’s Origins)
- It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. […] If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
- … the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. … Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
- 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.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Let me be clear, I am not advocating anything which contradicts the doctrine of original sin not am I advocating polygenism.
T
tafan2
Guest
I am also not trying to “act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts.”. It is all speculation.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
How could you tell the difference between one with a rational soul and one without? It might have been obvious, but maybe not.
I think we need to understand why beastiality is sin. Is it simply because one party is irrational? To my mind as long as the union can be fruitful there would be no reason for it to be sin. I’d like to see a Church teaching on this.
T
tafan2
Guest
It would be very obvious that there was a difference. The ability to talk would have been the most apparent, as language is certainly a result of a rational soul. Thinking through problems, drastically advanced tools, likely cultivation ability, art, etc. It’s not hard to see how this truly less to a survival of the fittest within a very few generations. An I am not just saying through some competition of violent means. If we were to assume that the offspring of every mating between the humans and protohumans were endowed with rational souls, that would have been enough.
E
EndTimes
Guest
YES…
It’s Catholic Church Teaching - and this is a Catholic Forum…
Ref: Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII
It’s Catholic Church Teaching - and this is a Catholic Forum…
Ref: Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII
E
EndTimes
Guest
So that we clearly distinguish Fable - from Truth…
Genesis is not a Myth…
Genesis is not a Myth…
A
angel12
Guest
That may be your personal opinion, but the Church doesn’t claim the Nephilim were demons
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes… . Thank You.
Much speculation exists… Theoretically Infinitely…
And in some cases, for what actual Reasons?
Are some looking for “Proof” that Scriptures and Gospel are Sacred and True?
Problem can be that so-called “Proof” and Faith - can not co-exist within the same domain.
Faith is the Key which opens the Door (Jesus) to God the Father
Much speculation exists… Theoretically Infinitely…
And in some cases, for what actual Reasons?
Are some looking for “Proof” that Scriptures and Gospel are Sacred and True?
Problem can be that so-called “Proof” and Faith - can not co-exist within the same domain.
Faith is the Key which opens the Door (Jesus) to God the Father
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Ill link it when I find it but the jest is we can’t know the state of the human heart moments before death. Even a man hanging himself powerless to save himself can be contrite enough.
We don’t know.
Don’t look into the truth just accept.
That’s garbage.
We don’t know.
That is the lamest thing I ever heard.
Don’t look into the truth just accept.
That’s garbage.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Science cannot identify or find a soul. People should not be connecting limited science and its idea of reality with the Church’s knowledge which is complete. Quit making false connections.
E
edwest211
Guest
Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
Source - Catholic Answers
G
Gorgias
Guest
The problem isn’t “how many sons and daughters did Adam and Eve have?”, it’s “did the children of Adam and Eve commit incest in order to propagate the human species?”.
Please note that the question isn’t asking “if there were incest, then why aren’t we all genetically damaged by it?”
The question is asking the following:
- isn’t incest morally evil? Aren’t we saying, by asserting this, that the human race was initially propagated through immoral acts?
- empirical analysis tells us that there was never a bottleneck of less than 10K or so distinct human persons. If this is the case, then how do we square up an explanation of Genesis that attempts to claim scientific/historical accuracy with empirical data that conflicts with it? (Other than just saying “God is always right; man is therefore, by definition, wrong.”)
No – that makes us humans. It does not make us “not animals.”
Umm… even those Catholics around here who are willing to float the idea that’s being presented in this thread would assent to the proposition that “there were two first truly human parents, to whom tradition gives the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’, and from whom all humans proceed.” Note, however, that this doesn’t imply that we proceed only from Adam and Eve; it’s just that they were our first true human parents, and we all share in their lineage.edwest211:
You mean this literally?
To be fair, if one posits that the Genesis account is literally true, then he literally is arguing that Adam was created from pre-existing matter, and that Eve was created from pre-existing and living matter.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Better yet, how could we tell the difference today, looking at bones and such?
And without getting too graphic, let’s ask a somewhat-uncomfortable question: a few hundred years ago, western caucasians argued that the peoples in certain parts of the world were sub-human. That is, they argued that, although they looked similar to civilized humans, they were not. (In fact, this was the rationalization for the morality of slavery.) And yet, people mated with these so-called ‘sub-humans’ and gave birth through these unions. If we so-called “civilized persons” did this a scant century or three ago… why are we appalled at the thought that our earliest ensouled human ancestors would have done precisely the same thing? Especially when there would have been more upstanding reasons for doing so?
When you see people talking about genres of literature, ‘myth’ doesn’t mean “untrue”, it means " a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon."
Then why are you discounting a theory based on the lack of empirical evidence? Quit making false connections.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Lol!
I was looking for the joke but then I realized you meant to say, “gist”.
That is true.
We don’t know that. It’s just an assumption.
Right.
Why worry about something you can’t control?
It’s my opinion. I might think the same about yours. Should I describe your opinion as trash? Let’s have a friendly conversation. If you don’t agree, at least try to be agreeable.
- Status