Did Adam and Eve have children before the Fall?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristRocket
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just like with Galileo, the Church will hang on to wrong beliefs until conclusively proven wrong by science, and then backtrack. Even today there are Catholics who promote the idea of geocentrism against all scientific evidence.
 
Just like with Galileo, the Church will hang on to wrong beliefs until conclusively proven wrong by science, and then backtrack. Even today there are Catholics who promote the idea of geocentrism against all scientific evidence.
Pardon me.

The Catholic Church never, absolutely never, declared geocentrism a Catholic doctrine based on Divine Revelation.

What many people fail to understand is that there is a precise Catholic protocol in place when discussion regarding the Catholic Deposit of Faith is brought to a major Catholic Ecumenical Council. The scientific issues of planetary movements did not meet the requirements of Catholic protocol.

Please note carefully that anyone who claims to be a Catholic has the same right to free speech as you do. Even popes have the right to express opinions, both right and wrong. Please note carefully that personal opinions and conclusions can be discussed; however, not every opinion and conclusion automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

None of the many, many documents involving the local trial of Galileo, many of which appeared on CAF years ago, led to a formal proper Catholic Ecumenical Council which was guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John). Therefore; while individuals can talk forever, individuals in the time of Galileo did not have the necessary authority to proclaim geocentrism as a true Catholic doctrine in the Catholic Deposit of Faith maintained in the visible Catholic Church on earth.
 
Pardon me.

The Catholic Church never, absolutely never, declared geocentrism a Catholic doctrine based on Divine Revelation.

What many people fail to understand is that there is a precise Catholic protocol in place when discussion regarding the Catholic Deposit of Faith is brought to a major Catholic Ecumenical Council. The scientific issues of planetary movements did not meet the requirements of Catholic protocol.

Please note carefully that anyone who claims to be a Catholic has the same right to free speech as you do. Even popes have the right to express opinions, both right and wrong. Please note carefully that personal opinions and conclusions can be discussed; however, not every opinion and conclusion automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

None of the many, many documents involving the local trial of Galileo, many of which appeared on CAF years ago, led to a formal proper Catholic Ecumenical Council which was guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John). Therefore; while individuals can talk forever, individuals in the time of Galileo did not have the necessary authority to proclaim geocentrism as a true Catholic doctrine in the Catholic Deposit of Faith maintained in the visible Catholic Church on earth.
It was obviously important enough for the Church to take on Galileo. Why not simply stay out of what it knows nothing about? Maybe the best policy would be to keep quiet unless it is an alleged divine revelation. Otherwise it is merely an opinion that could be wrong, in which case why pay any attention?
 
It was obviously important enough for the Church to take on Galileo. Why not simply stay out of what it knows nothing about? Maybe the best policy would be to keep quiet unless it is an alleged divine revelation. Otherwise it is merely an opinion that could be wrong, in which case why pay any attention?
It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church’s Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn’t it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal’s admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo’s scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.

This was Galileo’s dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo’s works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.

Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo’s request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope’s personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.

Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised.

As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the “dialogue” was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named “Simplicius”) was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.

But Galileo’s greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope’s view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope’s words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope’s views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.

It’s interesting to note that during all of Galileo’s conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church but also because he did not have Galileo’s biting arrogance.

So it was that Galileo’s spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, repeatedly got him in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated-Galileo is truly one of the giants of science-but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church, it’s also important to remember that the root of his problems were not his scientific views but his own unbridled arrogance.
 
It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church’s Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn’t it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal’s admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo’s scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.

This was Galileo’s dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo’s works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.

Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo’s request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope’s personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.

Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised.

As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the “dialogue” was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named “Simplicius”) was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.

But Galileo’s greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope’s view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope’s words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope’s views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.
QUOTE=Randy Carson;12611444
  1. What moral authority did the Cardinal have to prevent Galileo from teaching a scientific theory? The Church must have believed it had biblical backing for their incorrect view, so ultimately misinterpreted Scripture. They wouldn’t have opposed Galileo for no reason.
  2. Today, if a Cardinal admonished someone to refrain from something (not an infallible Church teaching), how should the person consider this “order” given the Church was flat out wrong with Galileo?
  3. Threatened with torture! Do you support this action or do you believe it was morally wrong?
 
Randy,

Thanks for the great story outline of Galileo. I’ve never heard that he was threatened with torture, and as far as I was aware, he was put on house arrest within the Vatican, not allowed to go back to his own home. But yes, he died of natural causes in his old age, and was allowed to continue his work.

Moondawg- by what moral authority?
Is it a hard request for someone to not to teach something as irrevocable truth without having the facts to back it up? As pointed out by Randy, which can be attested to by many sources, it wasn’t for his teachings that he was admonished, it was his arrogant nature and personal attacks. Also, I’m sure there were many others irritated by Galileo’s antics and it may have been a positive thing to keep him safely on house arrest instead of mob lynched.

Furthermore, as far as torture, I don’t know if it was ever a serious threat-we have no way of knowing for sure, but one thing is certain (according to my own knowledge), that the Church never carried out sentences such as this, it would be a secular responsibility if it had been deemed necessary. I don’t know of any instances where the Church itself carried out a sentence such as the Death Penalty or other extreme verdicts.
 
This is a fascinating idea because I always wondered who exactly it was that Cain was supposed to be afraid of killing him when he was banished by God after he slew Able.
If it was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Able around, who was Cain fearful of and why did god place a mark on Cain to protect him. Who exactly was God protecting Cain from. This idea actually makes this entire passage make some sense.
See Genesis 4:14-15.
 
Just like with Galileo, the Church will hang on to wrong beliefs until conclusively proven wrong by science, and then backtrack.
I love this claim, especially since it castigates the Church for doing what scientists should do. Yes, scientists should ‘hang on to’ their theories until ‘conclusively proven wrong by science’. It’s what scientists do – they propose, they prove, and until they are disproven, they hold to their theories. Similarly, those with new theories should not make the claim that their theories are true until they’re able to prove them. That’s all the Church was asking Galileo to do – to assert only that his theories were ‘theories’ and not ‘proven truth’ until he could actually prove them. What a mind-boggling concept! :rolleyes:
 
Well, this first of all isn’t an absolute study, nor is it a fully complete study and second of all it DOES say that we can trace most men back to 1 male Ancestor and most Women to 1 common ancestor.
No – it’s tracing back all people alive today to a common ancestor. That’s a big difference.

From the article: “These primeval people aren’t parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren’t the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.”

In other words, they’re talking about ‘mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-chromosome Adam’. These are popular terms to describe the ‘most recent common ancestor’, not terms asserting anything about the original human(s).
 
Randy,

Moondawg- by what moral authority?
Is it a hard request for someone to not to teach something as irrevocable truth without having the facts to back it up? As pointed out by Randy, which can be attested to by many sources, it wasn’t for his teachings that he was admonished, it was his arrogant nature and personal attacks. Also, I’m sure there were many others irritated by Galileo’s antics and it may have been a positive thing to keep him safely on house arrest instead of mob lynched.

Furthermore, as far as torture, I don’t know if it was ever a serious threat-we have no way of knowing for sure, but one thing is certain (according to my own knowledge), that the Church never carried out sentences such as this, it would be a secular responsibility if it had been deemed necessary. I don’t know of any instances where the Church itself carried out a sentence such as the Death Penalty or other extreme verdicts.
Let’s simplify this:

Was Galileo right and the church wrong about the science?
Was the Church wrong to persecute and threaten Galileo with torture regardless of his “antics” as you describe them?

In terms of torture, the Church turned the “guilty” over to the secular authorities for the torture. This is your defense?
 
I love this claim, especially since it castigates the Church for doing what scientists should do. Yes, scientists should ‘hang on to’ their theories until ‘conclusively proven wrong by science’. It’s what scientists do – they propose, they prove, and until they are disproven, they hold to their theories. Similarly, those with new theories should not make the claim that their theories are true until they’re able to prove them. That’s all the Church was asking Galileo to do – to assert only that his theories were ‘theories’ and not ‘proven truth’ until he could actually prove them. What a mind-boggling concept! :rolleyes:
Asking him? They persecuted him. Also what hypocrisy to require Galileo to refrain from theories until he can “prove” them when the Church took the opposite position (geocentrism) without proof and was wrong!
 
40.png
Allegra:
If they had, wouldn’t such children and their descendants be free from original sin?
No, because when they fell, it would have affected all of man kind. It would not have left anyone unaffected.
40.png
grannymh:
The contracted State of Original Sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation.
Granny answered in passing and tersely, so you might have missed it, CR, but hers is the correct rebuttal to your assertion.

Original sin doesn’t “affect all of mankind” through the proxy of Adam; it affects us by virtue of the fact that we are sons and daughters of Adam & Eve. If there were children born in the garden, who didn’t participate in the original sin, then they would be unaffected by it. (That’s one reason why the Church says that there were none.) One of the invalid approaches to polygenesis is the suggestion that we inherit original sin by proxy through Adam, as by followers through their leader; the Church has stated that this is not true.
 
Gorgias,

That does make complete sense in a theological stance.
My only suggestion is, when looking at it in an allegorical sense, is that perhaps Adam/Eve represent the Human Race as a whole and that the sin committed was a communial sin.
I understand the official stance though.

Moondawg- I don’t know enough to give you a full rebuttal, but from my knowledge, is that The Church in most cases would give a guilty or not guilty verdict and that the Secular Authorities would then give the sentence and carry it out, whatever it might be. The Church didn’t necessarily always agree with the sentence and as has been pointed out in this thread, opinion can/do vary. Whereas it may be agreed upon that one is a heretic, it may not be agreed up as to what the sentence for that crime should be.

Also, something to note is that Church Hearings always occured within it’s own members. For example, The Church could not try a non-Catholic for heresy.
 
My only suggestion is, when looking at it in an allegorical sense, is that perhaps Adam/Eve represent the Human Race as a whole and that the sin committed was a communial sin.
That’s precisely the argument that was rejected by the Church, though… 🤷
 
Asking him? They persecuted him.
He agreed not assert that his unproven theories were proven fact. He reneged on the agreement… in writing… in a book that ridiculed the pope! (Bad approach; don’t taunt powerful political figures. ;)) That’s not ‘persecution’, I would assert.
Also what hypocrisy to require Galileo to refrain from theories until he can “prove” them when the Church took the opposite position (geocentrism) without proof and was wrong!
Geocentrism was the accepted scientific theory of the day. There’s no ‘hypocrisy’ in accepting the commonly-held scientific theory until someone comes along to disprove it!

In fact, Copernicus suggested that geocentrism was erroneous, and the Church was perfectly happy with his research. Of course, Copernicus didn’t have the hubris to suggest that his theory was to be held as scientifically proven until, in fact, it was proven… nor did he lampoon powerful political figures when he discussed his theories. 🤷
 
  1. What moral authority did the Cardinal have to prevent Galileo from teaching a scientific theory? The Church must have believed it had biblical backing for their incorrect view, so ultimately misinterpreted Scripture. They wouldn’t have opposed Galileo for no reason.
You misunderstand the situation. Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying.

Here are some articles that might be helpful:

Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholicfidelity.com/why-did-the-catholic-church-condemn-galileo-by-catholic-answers/

The Galileo Controversy
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

**Twisting the Knife **
How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself
By Wil Milan
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1370
 
You misunderstand the situation. Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying.

Here are some articles that might be helpful:

Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholicfidelity.com/why-did-the-catholic-church-condemn-galileo-by-catholic-answers/

The Galileo Controversy
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

**Twisting the Knife **
How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself
By Wil Milan
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1370
That is my point and I’m glad you acknowledge it: Galileo was silenced because his correct scientific claim had theological implications. Cased closed.👍
 
That is my point and I’m glad you acknowledge it: Galileo was silenced because his correct scientific claim ** which he could not prove** had theological implications. Cased closed.👍
There we go… fixed that for ya.

It’s unreasonable for an authority to demand that a person not go around stating *as fact *something in this natural world that they can’t prove as fact?
 
There we go… fixed that for ya.

It’s unreasonable for an authority to demand that a person not go around stating *as fact *something in this natural world that they can’t prove as fact?
You have this authoritarian streak in you where opinions and free speech not agreeable to the Catholic Church must be silenced. When is something proven? There are Catholic loons around today still claiming Galileo was wrong (Robert Sungenis). The Pope recently is making pronouncements about “global warming” which is far from proven. Had Galileo warned of it and the Church disagreed, you would have advocated his silencing. People like you, who prostrate themselves under the jackboot of religious authorities, worry me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top