Descendants of Adam and Eve mated with pre-humans?

[AlbMagno]

We have told you one millon times in Evolution threads that this isn’t the case. Theistic evolution is NOT atheism.

 

[edwest211]

Explain exactly how the theistic part works.

 

[AlbMagno]

God created and operates the Universe from Eternity (outside of time), so He doesn’t need to intervene miraculously to create humankind, it can flow naturally, from His natural operation.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Scripture states that Eve was the mother of all living. If any of her children “mated” with “almost-human” beings, then she could not be the mother of all living.

 

[Gorgias]

So, do you have any thoughts about whether sex between rational and non-rational homosapiens would constitute bestiality?

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? (Let alone that it’s the only straw that the “Yay incest! Boo bestiality!” crowd has at its disposal!)

The discussion hinges fully, I think, on how we define ‘bestiality’. So, let’s define it as “sexual relations between a hominin and a non-hominin”. After all, we’re talking about a definition based on a physical activity, so let’s define it in physical terms, right?

(Naturally, the other side of the argument will assert that the definition is “sexual relations between a human and a non-human”, which would end the argument right there.)

So, we can attempt to define in a way that’s completely unverifiable (since there’s no way to distinguish physically between an “ensouled hominin” and an “unensouled hominin”), or we can define it in a way that’s manifestly evident (between a hominin and a non-hominin). If we do the latter, then, we can clearly say that the naysayers’ claim of ‘bestiality’ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

That old canard? Again? Identify the proto-humans.

What… by name? Address? C’mon…

Scripture states that Eve was the mother of all living. If any of her children “mated” with “almost-human” beings, then she could not be the mother of all living.

“almost-human” beings – and by that we mean “hominins who are unensouled” – aren’t “living”? How might you attempt to support such an unintuitive claim?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, I think I agree with all of that. A shame we aren’t given a more precise definition of beastiality.

The other issue I can think of vis a vis this subject is that perhaps both parents must be rational to produce rational offspring. Otherwise, why would a rational Eve even be needed. The response of course is that she might not have been needed for the purpose of propagating rationality. But it’s still interesting that we begin with Adam and Eve, not just Adam.

Scripture states that Eve was the mother of all living. If any of her children “mated” with “almost-human” beings, then she could not be the mother of all living.

“almost-human” beings – and by that we mean “hominins who are unensouled” – aren’t “living”? How might you attempt to support such an unintuitive claim?

More to the point, if anyone can trace lineage back to Eve then she is still their mother regardless of the state of any single parent along the way.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Are you some sort of self-appointed Mod or simply a genuine Mod… ?

If I were a mod you’d know. I’ve seen you going around these science threads trying to start fights. You drop onto this one and won’t even stay on topic. In fact, you express disdain for the whole subject. Yet here you are trying to stir something up. If you don’t want to participate then go away. And don’t bother replying to me further. I’m putting you on ignore.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

“almost-human” beings – and by that we mean “hominins who are unensouled” – aren’t “living”? How might you attempt to support such an unintuitive claim?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. But by “living” this would include theoretical “hominins who are unensouled.” Obviously, if they have the capability of mating with human children of Adam & Eve, then they would be “living.” So, since Eve would not be the “mother” of this hominims, she would not be the mother of all living. I think I’ll just stick to what Scripture says: Eve was the mother of all living, which would mean Adam & Eve were the first “living” creatures who were not animals & their children did not mate with any hypothetical “pre-humans.”

 

[Gorgias]

Not quite sure what you’re asking.

You asserted that, if some of Eve’s progeny mated with unensouled hominins, then she couldn’t be called “mother of (all) living”. I’m asking why.

So, since Eve would not be the “mother” of this hominims, she would not be the mother of all living.

You don’t even have to make the claim of ensouled/unensouled matings to make that claim, though. Heck, all you have to do is to note that, if evolution is true, then there were unensouled hominins living when Eve was given a soul, and therefore, you could make the same claim.

But, I don’t think that this claim holds up. After all, we’re talking about all the living humans with souls, aren’t we? And, for each of them, we would be able to trace lineage back (through one parent or both) to Adam and Eve. And therefore, “mother of all living”. Easy peasy!

I think I’ll just stick to what Scripture says: Eve was the mother of all living, which would mean Adam & Eve were the first “living” creatures who were not animals

The first half of your claim “sticks to Scripture”, but the second half is more personal interpretation than it is Scripture…

 

[Gorgias]

But it’s still interesting that we begin with Adam and Eve, not just Adam.

The ancients had no concept of ‘evolution’; to them, it was all stasis, all the way down. So, it’s difficult to imagine “inspiration” that would have allowed them to pen their narratives using a construct totally unimaginable by them.

 

[EndTimes]

Yes. And yes, I see that it specifically references Genesis 3 as figurative. But, if the preceding paragraph references the first three chapters , are you telling me that you’re gonna claim that chapter 1 is full-on, literalistic, scientific history, but then they just shift to figurative language only once they reach chapter 3?

Please to understand me wrt Genesis on through to the GOSPEL on through to Revelations… Via Faith I’ve accepted them as Truth… I’ve read Genesis and accept it and move on and have no problems understanding the call it deeper themes - which bring us to Today and Tomorrow - and includes a deep relationship with our Lord Jesus.

I’m bewildered by and recoil against the never-ending discussions which appear to lead nowhere and never get resolved including e.g. excursions, wondering if humans has sex with beasts…

Genesis could never have been written in anything resembling scientific forms of many centuries later.

After all - What Exactly Is SCIENCE? (cc: Hobgoblin)

The only thing open for any sort of meaningful question re: Genesis generally concerns “day” - and is its length been specified in hours, years or whatever. That’s been answered a zillion times… and IMO one should simply move on and continue with the Help of God’s Spirit - to continue to learn the Scriptural portion of God’s unfurling Revelation to Man - and thus continue to grow closer to God’s Perfection.

THAT SAID. And on a related note - Have many here witnessed any conversions from eg., Atheism to Christ via theological approaches?

I know I’m sounding harsh to some - yet my being able to bring more Focus directly upon Jesus - His Words and Actions… underlies my questions … for my own sake of learning from you.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m bewildered by and recoil against the never-ending discussions which appear to lead nowhere and never get resolved including e.g. excursions, wondering if humans has sex with beasts…

And on the other side of the discussion, do you recoil when you see dyed-in-the-wool creationists advocating that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had relations with each other? Some fail to see that this, truly, is worthy of a response of horror…!

 

[buffalo]

God created and operates the Universe from Eternity (outside of time), so He doesn’t need to intervene miraculously to create humankind, it can flow naturally, from His natural operation.

Why would the creation of man be an intervention?

 

[buffalo]

And on the other side of the discussion, do you recoil when you see dyed-in-the-wool creationists advocating that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had relations with each other? Some fail to see that this, truly, is worthy of a response of horror…!

Why? Perhaps by modern sensibilities it is.

 

[Gorgias]

Why? Perhaps by modern sensibilities it is.

Yep. I guess God’s Natural Moral Law is mutable, then? (Oh, boy… wait till incest and murder become legal again, huh???)

 

[Hobgoblin]

The ancients had no concept of ‘evolution’; to them, it was all stasis, all the way down. So, it’s difficult to imagine “inspiration” that would have allowed them to pen their narratives using a construct totally unimaginable by them.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

 

[buffalo]

Yep. I guess God’s Natural Moral Law is mutable, then? (Oh, boy… wait till incest and murder become legal again, huh???)

Actually, relations between the offspring are not immoral. Between parents and child is.

Jubilees (non canonical) states that Cain and Abel married their sisters.

 

[Ghosty1981]

THAT SAID. And on a related note - Have many here witnessed any conversions from eg., Atheism to Christ via theological approaches?

Not exactly sure what you’re asking, but my conversion from atheism to Catholicism was almost entirely based on philosophy (first in coming to believe in one unchanging, omnipotent God) and then theology (finding that the Catholic claims about this being were the best founded and most robust). My personal experience of Christ and my love of Him came only after my conversion; I never would have even attempted to know and love Him had philosophy and theology not led me to the Faith in the first place.

I can honestly say that the same is true for my wife, who converted from atheism after she met me. We first had to know in order to love. If the philosophical and theological arguments had not been sound we never would have pursued the Catholic Faith, just as we rejected every other belief system. Poor arguments and beliefs that contradict empirical reality would have led us to reject the Faith out of hand, so it is important to not put forward interpretations of Scripture that are weak.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

God and miracles will never go away. Among the gifts given to Adam and Eve was immortality. They did not have to die. When they disobeyed the one commandment they had to follow, all of Creation suffered. God is God, not science. Man is not god either nor is man as wise as God. Science is deficient, yet for some, it is the only answer. It isn’t.

 

[EndTimes]

delete this