- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Well, first you need to discard what they teach that is contrary to the Church so that you yourself do not add to the problem. And if you are well placed to oppose (in an appropriate manner), good on you.
Is there a Bishop at this time leading souls in a direction opposed to the teaching of the Church? Are you in a position to oppose them?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
By all accounts, accurate enough for the purposes to which it is put. But certainly not accurate enough to date anything to, say, 5,778 years old to confirm the precise creation date Glark deduces form a literal reading of Genesis.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Are you saying he derives pleasure from annoying people?
R
Rau
Guest
Enjoyment is a mutual thing!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Maybe, maybe not.
Yet, for creation literalists, there must be both a denial of the physical similarities between the creatures in the “March of Progress” graphic, as well as a certain insistence that the correct interpretation is “monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, Adam!”. If that’s the case, then there has to be a way to assert that the last figure has a soul… right?
(In a way, you’ve got to give credit to the YEC who claim that the fossil record and the DNA evidence is all fake and was put in place by God in order to fool us…
)
G
Gorgias
Guest
Apparently. Since, after all, the “image” of God is physical, right?
G
Gorgias
Guest
The part that you’ve been defending here: that one cannot be a good Catholic without believing in the historical literalism of the first chapters of Genesis.Gorgias:
Which parts do you disagree with?
You’re not dialoguing with ‘Biologos’ here… you’re dialoguing with us. We treat Scripture with solemnity and reverence. (Not all, however, treat it as if it’s entirely historical narrative.)
Like Augustine, who claimed that a historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly?
B
Benadam
Guest
Techno2000
You mean when a soulless male creature mated with a soulless female creature and produced an offspring suitable for God to put a soul in it ?
When I read this it pointed my mind to the sinless Mary born of parents with original sin. The ensoulment would happen at conception I would think. The Immaculate and the ensouled conceptions.
You mean when a soulless male creature mated with a soulless female creature and produced an offspring suitable for God to put a soul in it ?
When I read this it pointed my mind to the sinless Mary born of parents with original sin. The ensoulment would happen at conception I would think. The Immaculate and the ensouled conceptions.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
And, Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, (from Pope Pius’ June 1943 encyclical letter: Mystici Corporis (On the Mystical Body of Christ):
"…He (Christ) had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin …at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him… If we examine closely this divine principle of life and power given by Christ, insofar as it constitutes the very source of every gift and created grace, we easily perceive that it is nothing else than the Holy spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who is called in a special way, the “Spirit of Christ” or the “Spirit of the Son.” For it was by this Breath of grace and truth that the Son of God anointed His soul in the immaculate womb of the Blessed Virgin; this Spirit delights to dwell in the beloved soul of our Redeemer as in His most cherished shrine… For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! … "
"…He (Christ) had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin …at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him… If we examine closely this divine principle of life and power given by Christ, insofar as it constitutes the very source of every gift and created grace, we easily perceive that it is nothing else than the Holy spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who is called in a special way, the “Spirit of Christ” or the “Spirit of the Son.” For it was by this Breath of grace and truth that the Son of God anointed His soul in the immaculate womb of the Blessed Virgin; this Spirit delights to dwell in the beloved soul of our Redeemer as in His most cherished shrine… For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! … "
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
This is meant to support one way to understand the manner in which the first man may have been created; i.e. in the womb of a lesser being. But God is the Creator and Master of all that is. He could have made us any which way He chose, all of which i believe would be ultimately inconceivable to us. He could have made us whole. We do believe in the resurrection of the body. How does that work? He could have made us more real, that is with a physical and eternal body, of which this decomposing form only bears superficial likeness. When He gave us skins to protect us from this environment, it might mean that He provided us with an hominid anatomy. I don’t know. Suffice to say there was Adam and there was Eve.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
It doesn’t pass the test though. Adam would not wholly be the first man, having received his body from parents. Just the first man with an immortal soul. Adam would carry the DNA of a pre-existent race. All the other people would keep breeding. Then we would have some people on earth with material souls like the other animals. Although in our fallen state we may not be able to tell the difference.
Oh well. It was a nice try.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
You may want to reread what I wrote.
But, suffice to say you must not like that perspective and are trying to find fault with it.
I try to keep an open mind.
As to DNA, it seems to me you are making a bigger deal about it than it deserves.
Our DNA is 50% like that of banana.
It is dust organized in such a fashion that our spirit can use it in the construction who we are as a body-spirit unity.
We are created each of us by God.
The fertilization of the egg by a sperm cell (I would have said intercourse but it is no longer the only way) is required to bring about this miracle in space and time, but it is not the cause of a new human being.
Some people flip out when they hear the word evolution.
So they should if it leads some to abandon their relationship with God.
The fact is that it is nothing new, iI merely repeats what have always known - we appear to be animals.
We have livers, hearts, brains, bone and muscles. We feed our young with our milk.
That illusion arises if we fixate on the body.
A body, we should recall comes from the earth as did all the plants and animals that inhabit this earth.
But, suffice to say you must not like that perspective and are trying to find fault with it.
I try to keep an open mind.
As to DNA, it seems to me you are making a bigger deal about it than it deserves.
Our DNA is 50% like that of banana.
It is dust organized in such a fashion that our spirit can use it in the construction who we are as a body-spirit unity.
We are created each of us by God.
The fertilization of the egg by a sperm cell (I would have said intercourse but it is no longer the only way) is required to bring about this miracle in space and time, but it is not the cause of a new human being.
Some people flip out when they hear the word evolution.
So they should if it leads some to abandon their relationship with God.
The fact is that it is nothing new, iI merely repeats what have always known - we appear to be animals.
We have livers, hearts, brains, bone and muscles. We feed our young with our milk.
That illusion arises if we fixate on the body.
A body, we should recall comes from the earth as did all the plants and animals that inhabit this earth.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
DNA is mentioned to describe bodies that would be of one race. One race of people according to the flesh but two according to the souls.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I agree there is one race in humanity, having different superficial appearances.
If I understand you correctly, I would reply that Adam and Eve could have been conceived in the womb of a lesser being, one with a nonhuman soul. I’m not sure that is any weirder than imagining a clay-like figure moulded directly from the ground. To be fed and cared for by some primate, as they grew physically seems no less plausible than coming into being fully formed and foraging for themselves.
Whatever, I don’t know.
If I understand you correctly, I would reply that Adam and Eve could have been conceived in the womb of a lesser being, one with a nonhuman soul. I’m not sure that is any weirder than imagining a clay-like figure moulded directly from the ground. To be fed and cared for by some primate, as they grew physically seems no less plausible than coming into being fully formed and foraging for themselves.
Whatever, I don’t know.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
well, I was just kinda bouncing an idea around I got reading a previous post. I really can’t accept that idea,
I agree, hard to get a grab on the mystery surrounding the creation of Adam. Created fully formed seems required if there are no parents, no childhood.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I seem to be on a roll.
As to the 6K yr earth issue.
It is nowhere stated in scripture.
We can believe what we want here because it doesn’t matter to our salvation.
From what I understand, some guy added things up and came up with that figure.
I personally don’t buy it.
As to creation taking 6 days, I understand days to mean sequential steps that involved the progressive bringing into being, by God, of new forms of existence founded on what was previous created. As the pinnacle of creation, we came last. The messengers that I understand as having actualized the Word of God, the angels, lie at the foundations of the universe. Whether aligned with God or against Him (devils, in spite of their own intention to do otherwise), they fulfill His will.
But! I cannot deny the possibility that time does not behave as we think it does. As the speed of light is a constant no matter how fast we are travelling, perhaps a day is likewise. Maybe time is expanding as is space. Exponentially, a day at the beginning would included events that would now fill billions of years, and closer to the present, a day is a day. Since everything is changing together, I don’t know how one would prove or disprove this. Just a thought.
As to the 6K yr earth issue.
It is nowhere stated in scripture.
We can believe what we want here because it doesn’t matter to our salvation.
From what I understand, some guy added things up and came up with that figure.
I personally don’t buy it.
As to creation taking 6 days, I understand days to mean sequential steps that involved the progressive bringing into being, by God, of new forms of existence founded on what was previous created. As the pinnacle of creation, we came last. The messengers that I understand as having actualized the Word of God, the angels, lie at the foundations of the universe. Whether aligned with God or against Him (devils, in spite of their own intention to do otherwise), they fulfill His will.
But! I cannot deny the possibility that time does not behave as we think it does. As the speed of light is a constant no matter how fast we are travelling, perhaps a day is likewise. Maybe time is expanding as is space. Exponentially, a day at the beginning would included events that would now fill billions of years, and closer to the present, a day is a day. Since everything is changing together, I don’t know how one would prove or disprove this. Just a thought.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
If the last figure is Adam, then his two parents are soulless monkey creatures, also when did Eve pop out on the scene for him to procreate ?
Last edited:
S
spina1953
Guest
It would seem to me by common sense that its not good to take Darwin’s theory of evolution or Gen. in a literal manor as then one misses out on what theory means just as one misses out on the meaning of the story of Gen. The Bible is not science and Gen. is not science nor history as we understand science and history. Scriptures are meant to show a relationship between man and God. There is of course diverse interpretations whether it be Scripture or science. Science I think should aid one to a more better understanding complimenting Scripture and salvation history, not debasing God as though creation itself was some random act. Nor do i think one should take Scripture especially Gen. as a historical and scientific fact.
No one knows how God created. One must remember that in gen there is two creation stories so which one is the correct one? No one knows but its there which means man was trying to understand how he came to be and why he was created in the image of God whom no one see to know what God looks like. WE really do not know if monkeys have a soul or not nor do we know if any animal has a soul. What we do believe is that God created and all he created was good. I guess the real question is if evolution is true would that really change one’s belief in God?
No one knows how God created. One must remember that in gen there is two creation stories so which one is the correct one? No one knows but its there which means man was trying to understand how he came to be and why he was created in the image of God whom no one see to know what God looks like. WE really do not know if monkeys have a soul or not nor do we know if any animal has a soul. What we do believe is that God created and all he created was good. I guess the real question is if evolution is true would that really change one’s belief in God?
Last edited:
E
edwest21
Guest
And that is covered by Divine Revelation. Both Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts:
Source: Catholic Answers
Code:
impassibility (freedom from pain)
immortality (freedom from death)
integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)
infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)- Status