S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I am not going to get my science from the catholic church. The Catholic Church needs to do what it needs to do to correct it’s inadequate views.
- Status
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
You say Buffalo is wrong, that Tradition does not teach Adam and Eve are real. You referred to one of Buffalo’s posts where he cited specific teachings from Tradition saying Adam and Eve are real.
Can you cite any Church teachings to support your position- that Tradition doesn’t teach Adam and Eve are real?
Pax and God Bless.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
You are also wrong if you believe the Church only taught Adam and Eve were real before Darwin.
1859- On the Origin of Species is published.
1871- The Descent of Man is published.
1880- Pope Leo XIII issues the encyclical Arcanum, excerpt:
1950- Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis, excerpt:
Pax and God Bless.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I don’t know if this is what you mean, but I wasn’t suggesting the accounts weren’t true. What I was eluding to was the author’s intentions in writing.
To illustrate further, we have four Gospel accounts and we believe each account is true. However, there are differences. The reason being that while the message of the Gospel is universal, in the first instance author’s of the Gospel’s are addressing a specific audience at a particular point in history, and have specific areas of focus concerning the Gospel message. For example, a large number of Matthew’s community were Jewish converts to Christianity. Therefore, one of his areas of focus on the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah to establish Jesus credentials as the Messiah. In addition, a prominent theme of Matthew as opposed to the other Gospels is ‘right living’ in accordance with the Law which would have been important to Jews. Luke’s area of focus is Jesus as healer, which is understandable as he may have been a doctor. As he is addressing a mainly Gentile audience initially, his area of focus is Jesus as the Savior of Gentiles. John’s Gospel is mystical in nature and Mark’s focuses on events of Jesus death and resurrection. While the Gospel writers paint different portraits of Jesus and offer different interpretation in relation to his life, death and ministry, collectively they give us a more complete picture from different perspectives. Therefore, what are termed ‘contradictions’ can be readily explained and all can considered to be true. What cannot be said to true are interpretations of the author’s themselves did not intend.
To illustrate further, if four people witnessed a car accident and they gave identical statements to the police concerning the accident that were exactly the same, I reckon the police would be very suspicious. The same event can be described in a variety of ways and from a variety of perspectives, and depends on the intention behind the description - what it is you want others to know as a consequence.
B
buffalo
Guest
This is absolutely wrong.
Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused knowledge.
The church has been fighting evolution her entire existence.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is what this site is about. IDvolution
On the resource page you will see the well established faith resources. On the reason side you will find the latest that modern science is finding.
In any case - Adam and Eve could have simply been created supernaturally and inserted into the timeline wherever God wished no matter what was going on in the universe at the time.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Please listen to this. This is a well laid out defense for what the Church currently teaches on Genesis and other things. It also lays out the difference between a “literal” interpretation and a “literalist” interpretation.
biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/catholics_and_the_bible.mp3
Pax Christi.
biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/catholics_and_the_bible.mp3
Pax Christi.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Galileo was condemned.
Can you cite any documents of the Church stating the Shape of the Universe, the Bing Bang, the theory of relativity?
Adam and Eve did not Exist, there are quotations here to speak about “literary forms” of the Pentateuch.
Now, is going the Church to say that Lucy lived 2 million of years ago in Ethiopia, all the levels of evolution? Is the Pope going to talk about the million of pages the scientis talk about?
The Church is not here to state where man DID NOT come from but where it came from.
Dear Brother: let’s acknowledge. We are all in the same boat. Evolution made it harder to interpret the Bible as in the 16th century Galileo was a rock shaker.We cannot stand ther fighting for Adam. We have to move forward and see God-made beautiful way of creation of life: the evolution. Evolution in no way (unless for some stubborn heads) go against ANY teaching of the Church.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Fighting Evolution? Some people do.
Others not. Please, evolution is a scientific fact. Facts are created by God not by the devil.
What you stated is what i learnt since childhood. But I changed my mind. If you read the great Jesuit Fr. Theillard the Chardin, you will see the beautiful scenario he gives for evolution as a God’s plan for creation.
Remember, the Church fought Galileo and this has been a souce of misundertanding since then. Let’s not make evolution another point of contention, when it is a proven fact, scientifically.
there are not 2 Gods, the God of Faith and the God of Science. They are the same and cannot contradict Himself. If God reavealed that evolution is true, then let’s re-interpret Bible that is what the Church did with Galileo.
B
buffalo
Guest
Simply stating evolution is a fact does not mean it to be so. This was a NCSE talking point a year or so ago. Just keep making the claim it is a fact.
Just about every evo supporter posted it. Are you just catching up? 
Facts we proclaim are not created by God, they are the product of human reasoning, which is fallible. Absolute truth comes from God.
Did God know what Adam would look like?
G
grannymh
Guest
Please refer to paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Link:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Please enter “paragraph 355” in the search bar and continue reading from there.
Next, update yourself on various scientific theories regarding human nature.
W
Wardog
Guest
Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?Simply stating evolution is a fact does not mean it to be so. This was a NCSE talking point a year or so ago. Just keep making the claim it is a fact.
Facts we proclaim are not created by God, they are the product of human reasoning, which is fallible. Absolute truth comes from God.
Did God know what Adam would look like?
B
buffalo
Guest
No need for one.
G
grannymh
Guest
That may be the title of a book on 101 apologetic answers. It was the only question that didn’t have an answer.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Sorry, but a book called ‘Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons’ has already been written by, I believe, a Catholic priest.That may be the title of a book on 101 apologetic answers. It was the only question that didn’t have an answer.
I was recently on website that claimed they didn’t. It also claimed other things like Adam had both male and female reproductive organs. I’ve heard these ideas before.
Who knows?.
However, if Adam and Eve did have belly buttons, what would that suggest?
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would like to add something to this thread.
I’m a convert to Catholicism. During the process of catecheses, I was asked to profess the Nicean Creed, believe in the Sacraments, and Catholic teachings on Mary. These things I believe. Nor was I asked to believe everything that was written in the Catechism. I was told belief in the things mentioned above are enough to become Catholic, and call oneself Catholic. When children in my part of the world are prepared for Confirmation, they are not asked to profess belief in mongoenism. Monogenism was never mentioned. I was never at any time told belief in monogenism was essential, and all the books I read stating what teachings are essential, that must be believed in order to become Catholic, mongenism was not among them. If belief in monogenism is essential, I have to ask myself why not? I was never told I could not become Catholic unless I believed in mongenism.
Now some may say I was ‘badly catechized’ and I should have been told belief in monogenism is essential, and I should have been told I had to accept everything in the Catechism in order to become Catholic. They may have a point, but nothing will change the fact that when I became Catholic I didn’t ‘sign up’ to belief in monogenism, and I wasn’t asked to. The first time I heard it this teaching was binding on Catholics was about six months ago on this forum, which seems a bit late in the day to me.
I’m a convert to Catholicism. During the process of catecheses, I was asked to profess the Nicean Creed, believe in the Sacraments, and Catholic teachings on Mary. These things I believe. Nor was I asked to believe everything that was written in the Catechism. I was told belief in the things mentioned above are enough to become Catholic, and call oneself Catholic. When children in my part of the world are prepared for Confirmation, they are not asked to profess belief in mongoenism. Monogenism was never mentioned. I was never at any time told belief in monogenism was essential, and all the books I read stating what teachings are essential, that must be believed in order to become Catholic, mongenism was not among them. If belief in monogenism is essential, I have to ask myself why not? I was never told I could not become Catholic unless I believed in mongenism.
Now some may say I was ‘badly catechized’ and I should have been told belief in monogenism is essential, and I should have been told I had to accept everything in the Catechism in order to become Catholic. They may have a point, but nothing will change the fact that when I became Catholic I didn’t ‘sign up’ to belief in monogenism, and I wasn’t asked to. The first time I heard it this teaching was binding on Catholics was about six months ago on this forum, which seems a bit late in the day to me.
G
grannymh
Guest
For me, monogenism is a new word describing an old concept.
May I ask what you were taught about Original Sin.
I ask this because that is where one learns about Adam whose free choice would affect his descendents. Since I have read so many confused versions of Original Sin, I wonder what young people are taught, if anything.
R
razredge
Guest
Sorry, but i’d rather accept actual science rather than pseudoscience - which isn’t even accepted by the vast majority of Catholic clergy and theologians.
Sure - of course, God could also have created the world 7 seconds ago and merely made it look as if it were billions of years old.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please show which reason link on the resource page is pseudoscience.
R
razredge
Guest
Why do you keep assuming that monogenism is necessary for Original Sin.
Cardinal Ratzinger himself put forward a model of OS that is perfectly compatible with polygenism.
And anyway, ‘Original Sin’ as we understand it is largely an invention of Paul, further developed by St Augustine & other theologians over the ages. It does not come from a literal reading of Genesis as neither the Jews nor the Muslims ever come to the conclusion that the Fall means we all are born with some kind of inherited sin.
- Status