Did Adam and Eve have children before the Fall?

[Gorgias]

You have this authoritarian streak in you where opinions and free speech not agreeable to the Catholic Church must be silenced.

LOL! No, you don’t know me as well as you presume. Opinions? Great things. Free speech? Awesome idea. However, when it comes to science, only one think matters: empirical evidence. Galileo had some, but not enough to prove his theories. (That came later.) So, it would have been intellectually honest for him to say, “I think that…” or “my observations lead me to believe that…”; but, when he asserts that his theories are true, without sufficient evidence to back them up, he fails as a scientist.

By the way: I’m not in the business of ‘silencing’ “opinions and free speech not agreeable to the Catholic Church.” Rebutting them? Sure. Demonstrating errors and inaccuracies in them? You betcha! What’s wrong with that?

When is something proven?

“What is truth?”, you mean to ask? Greater than you have asked that question. Yet, can you say that Galileo’s claim – that the sun sits still at the center of the universe – is true? That is to say, despite your claims that Galileo got it right, isn’t it more accurate to say that he was closer to the truth than the defenders of geocentrism, but not completely accurate? That being said, how can you hold to the story that he had sufficient proof to demonstrate the claims that, today, we know aren’t true? (After all, back then, they would not have claimed that the sun, too, moved.)

Brahe claimed that Venus (but not the earth) rotated around the sun. The empirical evidence of Galileo’s day could be used to support both this theory and Copernicus’/Galileo’s. If this was the extent of the evidence available, and it supported two mutually exclusive scientific theories, how can you (without being anachronistic and bringing in later observations and discoveries) rationally hold that Galileo’s proof was sufficient?

There are Catholic loons around today still claiming Galileo was wrong (Robert Sungenis).

That there still exist geocentrists is immaterial to this argument.

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.

Of course not. However, any scientist who makes claims that cannot be proven is one to look askance at, wouldn’t you agree?

People like you, who prostrate themselves under the jackboot of religious authorities, worry me.

Is that so? People who prostrate themselves under the jackboot of scientific authorities worry me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is my point and I’m glad you acknowledge it: Galileo was silenced because his correct scientific claim had theological implications. Cased closed.

Hilarious.

I’m guessing that you didn’t actually read the articles because you don’t want to know the truth. What you want is something with which to accuse the Catholic Church of wrong-doing.

 

[moondawg]

Hilarious.

I’m guessing that you didn’t actually read the articles because you don’t want to know the truth. What you want is something with which to accuse the Catholic Church of wrong-doing.

You totally evade my point based on your own words: "Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying. "

I repeat your words: “Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

You totally evade my point based on your own words: "Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying. "

I repeat your words: “Galileo was silenced because of the theological implications of what he was saying.”

moondawg-

I apologize. I misread your post, and responded incorrectly. Please forgive me.

Yes, Galileo was found guilty by the Church of teaching something that was of theological significance. Theologians (the Church) asked him to stop, but he did not. This was a theological matter, and Galileo was wrong to disobey.

The problem that you are apparently overlooking (and again, did you read the articles?) is that despite having many friends within the Church who supported him (including the Pope), Galileo could not PROVE his theory. It was, at the time, just a theory. Consequently, the Church insisted that he not teach heliocentrism without proof.

Of course, this was beyond him, and it would be a loooooong time before anyone could prove Galileo correct. But the matter was NEVER about whether or not Galileo was right about the science; it was about whether or not he had the right to teach a theological concept AS FACT without certainty.

Seriously, read, if you have not already done so. Thanks.

 

[moondawg]

moondawg-

I apologize. I misread your post, and responded incorrectly. Please forgive me.

Yes, Galileo was found guilty by the Church of teaching something that was of theological significance. Theologians (the Church) asked him to stop, but he did not. This was a theological matter, and Galileo was wrong to disobey.

The problem that you are apparently overlooking (and again, did you read the articles?) is that despite having many friends within the Church who supported him (including the Pope), Galileo could not PROVE his theory. It was, at the time, just a theory. Consequently, the Church insisted that he not teach heliocentrism without proof.

Of course, this was beyond him, and it would be a loooooong time before anyone could prove Galileo correct. But the matter was NEVER about whether or not Galileo was right about the science; it was about whether or not he had the right to teach a theological concept AS FACT without certainty.

Seriously, read, if you have not already done so. Thanks.

I read them. What did it matter to the Church if heliocentrism was true or not? How is it a theological concept? It still took the Church over 300 years to admit it was wrong:

nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

And now with the Pope making pronouncements on “global warming”, the Church once again risks embarrassment if science proves him wrong.

 

[grannymh]

No.

There are no demonstrations of children playing under the forbidden tree recorded in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

I read them. What did it matter to the Church if heliocentrism was true or not? How is it a theological concept?

The theological question was whether a literal reading of the Bible, which would be understood to mean that the earth was the center of the universe, was correct. Bellarmine himself realized that, if the heavens didn’t revolve around the earth, then the interpretation as literal would have to be re-evaluated. Since Galileo couldn’t prove his assertions (he could only demonstrate that the assertion that everything revolved around the earth was false), Bellarmine advised him to only say what he could prove: that his theories enabled him to correctly predict the motions in the heavens.

It still took the Church over 300 years to admit it was wrong

You might want to choose a different source than the NYT to help you understand what, in particular, John Paul II actually said; the Grey Lady gets it wrong, on this one:

If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the cultural horizon of Galileo’s age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons for Galileo’s condemnation. The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.

The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.

(From an English translation of John Paul II’s address of October 31, 1992, as it appeared in L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4 November 1992, and taken from this web site.)

(p.s., you might want to note that the NYT article that you cited was written before the Pope gave his speech. )

And now with the Pope making pronouncements on “global warming”, the Church once again risks embarrassment if science proves him wrong.

Nope. If the Pope speaks on global warming, he does not do so in the realm of ‘faith and morals’; there is no theological claim to be made here that hinges on the correct scientific explanation of the causes of global warming. Your claims are all apples and oranges…

 

[marymary1975]

teach that Adam and his spouse Eve had children before the Original Sin. The contracted State of Original Sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation.
Information source. CCC 404-405;* Humani Generis*, 37

^^^this. They had no children previous to the fall. In fact, Genesis states specifically that “Adam met his wife” I.e. inter course after the fall and then she bore her first child.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read them. What did it matter to the Church if heliocentrism was true or not? How is it a theological concept? It still took the Church over 300 years to admit it was wrong:

nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

And now with the Pope making pronouncements on “global warming”, the Church once again risks embarrassment if science proves him wrong.

Several passages of scripture suggest that the Earth does not move:

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”

So, the Church at that time had to deal with the fact that the Bible said one thing and an unproven scientific theory was saying something else.

It was a theological issue.

 

[moondawg]

Several passages of scripture suggest that the Earth does not move:

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”

So, the Church at that time had to deal with the fact that the Bible said one thing and an unproven scientific theory was saying something else.

It was a theological issue.

Why can’t the infallible Pope correctly interpret these passages as non-literal? If not for science the Church would STILL be teaching heliocentrism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why can’t the infallible Pope correctly interpret these passages as non-literal? If not for science the Church would STILL be teaching heliocentrism.

I see that you don’t actually understand what infallibility is or how it works. This may help:

Suppose the pope sits down to take a math test. 50 questions. How many will he get right?

Well, he might not get a single one right. Or he might get some correct. Or he might even get them all correct (but not because God was giving him the answers!).

But this is really, really important: when I said that he might not get a single one right, it would not be because he wrote the WRONG answer but because he left that problem BLANK.

IOW, infallibility does not mean that the pope knows all the answers (which answers your question above). He might not have a clue about how to do the math. In which case, he would simply remain silent because he is prevented by God from getting the answer wrong.

Of course, in real life, the pope is not impeccable; he can be wrong about many things, and this is just an analogy for illustative purposes.

In real life, a pope may speak infallibly in his official capacity as universal head of the Church, or he may teach non-infallibly AND EVEN INCORRECTLY based upon his own opinions as a theologian, or he might simply NOT ANSWER A QUESTION.

But what he cannot do, because God is protecting His Church from the errors of stupid men, is to formally teach something that is wrong thereby leading the entire Church astray. Infallibility is a God-thing, not a man-thing.

So, to sum up an answer to your question: if God had chosen to give the Pope a teaching for the entire Church based upon those verses and their relationship to Galileo’s theory, he could have offered it…or even FAILED to say something that God wanted said.

But what the Pope could not do is to demand answers to these questions from God and expect God to jump.

 

[Gorgias]

Why can’t the infallible Pope correctly interpret these passages as non-literal? If not for science the Church would STILL be teaching heliocentrism.

A couple quibbles: first, the pope himself isn’t ‘infallible’. Only declarations regarding faith and morals, made under certain conditions, are considered ‘infallible.’

Second, the Church didn’t “teach heliocentrism”, per se. Certainly, the Church didn’t make an infallible declaration of the faith regarding heliocentrism. (That’s why your assertion about Pope Francis and global warming has our eyes rolling into the backs of our heads; the Pope wouldn’t – and couldn’t! – make an infallible statement about the faith that included the assertion about the causes of global warming.)

What the Church did do, at one point, was to presume that passages in the Bible about the earth were to be taken literally – that the earth was the center of creation. In other words, the interpretative stance was that the second millennium B.C. understanding of the natural world was a divinely revealed truth about science. (Bad move, that. As early as the 4th century A.D., Augustine was already teaching that the Bible wasn’t a science book, and that the desire to treat it as if it were, would only lead to problems. Would that he were listened to more intently!)

So, as John Paul II said in his speech, the theologians of Galileo’s time hadn’t yet distinguished between ‘Scripture’ and ‘interpretation of Scripture’ as distinct entities; therefore, the inerrancy of Scripture was conflated with the (presumed) inerrancy of the interpretation of Scripture. The notions of Scriptural inerrancy and magisterial infallibility do not imply that our understanding of God’s revelation are static – far from it! So, unless there were a teaching on faith and morals that might arise from these passages, and that teaching were to include a statement on science, then there’s no possible opportunity for a infallible magisterial teaching on heliocentrism!

 

[Gorgias]

I see that you don’t actually understand what infallibility is or how it works. This may help:

Suppose the pope sits down to take a math test. 50 questions. How many will he get right?

Nice, illustrative example. One glaring problem, though: it leads to the possibility of misunderstanding the domain of ‘infallibility’. The Pope cannot make an infallible statement about math; only about faith and morals.

IOW, infallibility does not mean that the pope knows all the answers (which answers your question above). He might not have a clue about how to do the math. In which case, he would simply remain silent because he is prevented by God from getting the answer wrong.

Except that, infallibility doesn’t mean that God prevents the Pope from writing down the wrong answer to math problems. Those, he can get wrong all day long, and there’s no negative implication to the notion of ‘infallibility’.

You already know this, I’m confident, Randy… but your example might be misconstrued by some who don’t already understand the doctrine of infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nice, illustrative example. One glaring problem, though: it leads to the possibility of misunderstanding the domain of ‘infallibility’. The Pope cannot make an infallible statement about math; only about faith and morals.

I know, but I’m trying to get a light bulb to go on…even if it’s only a glimmer. :newidea:

 

[grannymh]

It is the properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrine which is infallible.

 

[moondawg]

But what the Pope could not do is to demand answers to these questions from God and expect God to jump.

God could have told the Pope (his representative on earth?) that Galileo was correct and avoided all the senseless persecution and ultimate embarrassment.

 

[moondawg]

It is the properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrine which is infallible.

How does one recognize when this is the case?

 

[moondawg]

I know, but I’m trying to get a light bulb to go on…even if it’s only a glimmer. :newidea:

If you know, why did you make such an absurd analogy?

 

[Gorgias]

God could have told the Pope (his representative on earth?) that Galileo was correct and avoided all the senseless persecution and ultimate embarrassment.

Again: the scientific question of the accuracy of heliocentrism is not something that lends itself to an infallible teaching, so no, that’s not something that this charism envelops.

On the other hand, in those days there was an understanding (not an infallible teaching, but a theological understanding) that the interpretations of Scripture – even those that weren’t part of infallible declarations – were as inerrant as Scripture itself. One such understanding was that geocentrism was affirmed by a literal interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. Therefore, short of re-evaluating the Church’s take on Scripture based solely on an unproven scientific theory, the Church continued to maintain its interpretive stance. That doesn’t refute the notion of infallibility, of course, since it does not address it at all.

Could God have made a special revelatory appearance to the pope in order to say, “don’t give Galileo a hard time”? Yes. What would that have done, though? Simply saved embarrassment? That’s not a promise God makes to us…

 

[Randy_Carson]

God could have told the Pope (his representative on earth?) that Galileo was correct and avoided all the senseless persecution and ultimate embarrassment.

Of course He could. But God does not typically work that way. Sometimes…but not often.