Is it okay to not believe in certain non-doctrine teachings of the church? (evolution, abortion)

[tifischer]

This is a very strange argument. You seem to be using and analogy of legos in a child’s room to show that the probability of life arising is very small. But the smallness of the child’s room and the number of legos is exactly what makes the probability of the legos coming together to form some design very small. The larger the universe, the larger those odds become. So your analogy does not apply the way you were hoping.

Actually in probabilities the total space would be the denominator so when the denominator gets larger than the numerator then the probability gets smaller. Space is less dense with matter than a child’s room. Thus the probability of the legos coming together based on distance and time is greater.

But we should recognize that the question of the origin of life itself is a separate question from the question of evolution. They may be related, but it is certainly possible for a person to hold one view of the origin of life and a somewhat different view of the theory of evolution. So you cannot use the problem of the origin of life to discredit Darwinian evolution.

Actually the existence of life and evolution are both based on random chance. And the catch-22 of evolution is that it is dependent on the existence of life in the first place making the probability of occurrence even lower…can’t have evolution of life without life first.

And if I could make a comment about using the language of probability:… The term “probability” has a very definite technical meaning in science and mathematics. It does not just mean “that feels improbable or probable to me”. In particular, probability only makes mathematical sense when you have a probability space - that is, a collection of instances of the thing to which you wish to assign a probability. So if you wanted to calculate the probability of rainy day, you could look at all the days in the past, or some subset of them, and consider how many of them were rainy. But if you want to calculate the probability that the gravitational constant would be such and such, or that the size of the universe would be such and such, you cannot really use probability. That is because there is no probability space. We don’t have a myriad of universes to examine. We only have one. We can imagine other universes, but that’s not the same thing. Imaginary universes do not count. So until we find 10 or 12 other planets on which life has arisen, we cannot calculate any rigorous probability for life having arisen. It makes no sense to talk about this question as if you were calculating the odds of getting three of a kind in poker.

You can calculate probability mathematically considering the number of objects moving in a particular space. If you calculate the amount of space occupied with matter subtract it from space at a given time compared to amount of space total…this will give the probability of finding space without matter. The difference from 1 is the probability of finding space filled with matter. This is the probability of you finding matter in space. The probability is so low that it would be essentially 0 and a mathematician would not consider there to be any correlation between finding matter and being in space. And the amazing part is that we know that life is only a very small part of that matter that does exist. Thus, the probability of life in the universe is even less than finding matter.

 

[someperson555]

What did the church fathers, the catechism, and popes say about the original parents

It doesn’t matter. If any pope said we are descended from two people they are wrong. Yes popes can be wrong too. Unless something is a dogma it is subject to correction and clarification. It is very obvious that people existed before adam and eve. For crying out loud the scythians walked the steppes at 10000 BC. You have to be able to distinguish between literal and figurative.
I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

 

[someperson555]

It doesn’t matter. If any pope said we are descended from two people they are wrong. Yes popes can be wrong too. Unless something is a dogma it is subject to correction and clarification. It is very obvious that people existed before adam and eve. For crying out loud the scythians walked the steppes at 10000 BC. You have to be able to distinguish between literal and figurative.
I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

Addition *
Consider the Neolithic age which was from around 10000 BC. And the stone age prior to that.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Addition *
Consider the Neolithic age which was from around 10000 BC. And the stone age prior to that.

There are artifacts that are around the stone age that was theortically from the bronze age…
Sorry but scientists can be wrong too.

I belivee there was adam and eve and other created and all bred…Thus interbreeding is not happening and the DNA of adam and eve continue.

Have a great day.

 

[cena]

It doesn’t matter. If any pope said we are descended from two people they are wrong. Yes popes can be wrong too. Unless something is a dogma it is subject to correction and clarification. It is very obvious that people existed before adam and eve. For crying out loud the scythians walked the steppes at 10000 BC. You have to be able to distinguish between literal and figurative.
I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

"St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227"
“390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265”
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

 

[grannymh]

It doesn’t matter. If any pope said we are descended from two people they are wrong. Yes popes can be wrong too. Unless something is a dogma it is subject to correction and clarification. It is very obvious that people existed before adam and eve. For crying out loud the scythians walked the steppes at 10000 BC. You have to be able to distinguish between literal and figurative.
I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

Yes. Humankind descended from two real sole first fully-complete human parents who lived somewhere on our planet. This is a Catholic dogma.

Biologically, it is possible that humankind descended from two first parents because Adam and Eve are a human male and human female.

The difficulty with inbreeding would not immediately occur because Adam and Eve are without human ancestors.

Where and when Adam and Eve began the human species is not known because all the pertinent data has not been obtained from every point on planet earth going thousands of years backwards.

Scientists can say that Adam and Eve are not probable; but, they cannot say that they are universally impossible. Consider the Black Swan principle. svswans.com/black.html

 

[grannymh]

I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

I have never read all 50 chapters of Genesis. However, it is very apparent that the first three chapters are about the basic nature of the human person, Genesis 1-26-27, and the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity, Genesis 2: 15-17 as a beginning,
continuing through chapter 3.

Naturally, the first three chapters describe God’s relationship with humanity. This friendship relationship, because it is between two very different levels of being, had strict requirements. As a creature, the way Adam could maintain his relationship with his Creator was to freely live in submission, that is, Adam had to freely obey his Creator. Adam’s original State of Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace was meant for all human nature. This is why it would be necessary that one person, with his spouse, would be the first sole parents. One sole set of biological parents would guarantee that all future humans would be born in Adam’s State of Original Holiness.

 

[Rau]

…Adam’s original State of Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace was meant for all human nature. This is why it would be necessary that one person, with his spouse, would be the first sole parents. One sole set of biological parents would guarantee that all future humans would be born in Adam’s State of Original Holiness.

The point you make here would be equally well served by positing an “Original Tribe”. I’m not suggesting that, just noting the argument you put does not lead to a single original pair.

 

[grannymh]

The point you make here would be equally well served by positing an “Original Tribe”. I’m not suggesting that, just noting the argument you put does not lead to a single original pair.

It is not so much a “lead to a single original pair.” It is more a demonstration of the best reasonable insurance plan for the future.

 

[gretenov]

Sorry if there are those who replied to me but I didn’t saw earlier. The thread has grown due to a debate that I do not consider worth debating. I will try to read backward whenever I can. Just got busy with work and real life stuff.

It is doctrine that abortion is always wrong. In Humanae Vitae, Blessed Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the fact that he used the word “declare” in this case means that this statement is tnfallible. I know for sure that getting or procuring an abortion carries the penalty of excommunication.

If you are a mother who decided to abort your child, or a father you convince/force your wife/girlfriend/f.w.b. to have an abortion, or a doctor or midwife to performed abortion, then it is inherently wrong.

How about those politicians who voted in favor of abortion, but do not practice it in their own personal life? The last time I checked, some bishops threatened these politicians of denying communion, but only a few actually denied communion. It seems like the church has no unified stance.

Much more, what about “merely holding a belief” that human life starts elsewhere other than fertilization?

The reason why I (personally) cannot accept that life starts at fertilization is the possibility of molar pregnancy. Go ahead and search it for more information. To give a brief information, molar pregancy happens when, after fertilizatin, the zygote continues to multiply becoming just lump of cell, instead of multiplying earlier and then differentiating into several kinds of cell. Molar pregnacy cells will just keep on multiplying and fill the womb, like a cancer and doctors treat it like it should be removed immediately.

Should we consider the molar cells a human? After all, they were formed after fertilization? So as a Catholic Christian, am I now sinning because I have this belief? Even if I was never involved in induced abortion in anyway.

 

[someperson555]

Yes. Humankind descended from two real sole first fully-complete human parents who lived somewhere on our planet. This is a Catholic dogma.

Biologically, it is possible that humankind descended from two first parents because Adam and Eve are a human male and human female.

The difficulty with inbreeding would not immediately occur because Adam and Eve are without human ancestors.

Where and when Adam and Eve began the human species is not known because all the pertinent data has not been obtained from every point on planet earth going thousands of years backwards.

Scientists can say that Adam and Eve are not probable; but, they cannot say that they are universally impossible. Consider the Black Swan principle. svswans.com/black.html

Lol no its not dogma. And even if it is its still not true. Im sorry but as a rational person I cannot accept something which goes against mountains of scientific research.

The reason I know that we didn’t descend from two people six thousand years ago is because every Caucasian and asian person has neanderthal DNA. The neanderthals lived well before Adam and Eve supposedly did. This and many other evidence tells us that humanity is older than six thousand years.

I believe adam and eve are symbolic. I believe that human BODIES evolved over the course of millions of years from anthropoid apes. I believe the spirit was breathed into a tribe of apes in the plains of africa. Then they became self aware and knew God for the first time.
Popes john Paul two through Francis all said that evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching. I held that theory ever since I was a child ( I was a nerdy child) but I was amazed when I read that pope john paul two essentially corroborated my theory. I think it was him who said that its ok to believe that our animal bodies evolved from lower organisms. As long as you believe the soul comes directly from God in each conception.

You have to be open minded. Creationism is an embarassement to christianity. It is why less and less people are taking us seriously.

Frankly ive seen your posts before and in my opinion you just use pseudo facts mostly.
I dont know what you meant with that black swan thing but if you think that just because something is not impossible we should believe in it then you commit a common fallacy among fundamentalist religious people. We should follow the evidence.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Lol no its not dogma. And even if it is its still not true. Im sorry but as a rational person I cannot accept something which goes against mountains of scientific research.

The reason I know that we didn’t descend from two people six thousand years ago is because every Caucasian and asian person has neanderthal DNA. The neanderthals lived well before Adam and Eve supposedly did. This and many other evidence tells us that humanity is older than six thousand years.

I believe adam and eve are symbolic. I believe that human BODIES evolved over the course of millions of years from anthropoid apes. I believe the spirit was breathed into a tribe of apes in the plains of africa. Then they became self aware and knew God for the first time.
Popes john Paul two through Francis all said that evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching. I held that theory ever since I was a child ( I was a nerdy child) but I was amazed when I read that pope john paul two essentially corroborated my theory. I think it was him who said that its ok to believe that our animal bodies evolved from lower organisms. As long as you believe the soul comes directly from God in each conception.

You have to be open minded. Creationism is an embarassement to christianity. It is why less and less people are taking us seriously.

Frankly ive seen your posts before and in my opinion you just use pseudo facts mostly.
I dont know what you meant with that black swan thing but if you think that just because something is not impossible we should believe in it then you commit a common fallacy among fundamentalist religious people. We should follow the evidence.

Anything else about Christianity that you find embarrassing,?just asking

 

[cena]

Lol no its not dogma. And even if it is its still not true. Im sorry but as a rational person I cannot accept something which goes against mountains of scientific research.

The reason I know that we didn’t descend from two people six thousand years ago is because every Caucasian and asian person has neanderthal DNA. The neanderthals lived well before Adam and Eve supposedly did. This and many other evidence tells us that humanity is older than six thousand years.

I believe adam and eve are symbolic. I believe that human BODIES evolved over the course of millions of years from anthropoid apes. I believe the spirit was breathed into a tribe of apes in the plains of africa. Then they became self aware and knew God for the first time.
Popes john Paul two through Francis all said that evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching. I held that theory ever since I was a child ( I was a nerdy child) but I was amazed when I read that pope john paul two essentially corroborated my theory. I think it was him who said that its ok to believe that our animal bodies evolved from lower organisms. As long as you believe the soul comes directly from God in each conception.

You have to be open minded. Creationism is an embarassement to christianity. It is why less and less people are taking us seriously.

Frankly ive seen your posts before and in my opinion you just use pseudo facts mostly.
I dont know what you meant with that black swan thing but if you think that just because something is not impossible we should believe in it then you commit a common fallacy among fundamentalist religious people. We should follow the evidence.

The six thousand years is not a requirement to believe. The first man and woman who are our parents who sinned and passed down original sin is required.

“St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43)”

St. Augustine and other Church fathers had the teachings directly handed down by the apostles. If I remember correctly Augustine and other Church Fathers did not take the 7 days literally either.

“If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT5.HTM

 

[grannymh]

Anything else about Christianity that you find embarrassing,?just asking

I wish I could say what is in my mind.

 

[grannymh]

I believe adam and eve are symbolic.

What are Adam and Eve symbolic of? What is the meaning of a symbolic Adam and Eve? What did you learn from a symbolic Adam and Eve? Just asking.

 

[someperson555]

The six thousand years is not a requirement to believe. The first man and woman who are our parents who sinned and passed down original sin is required.

“St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43)”

St. Augustine and other Church fathers had the teachings directly handed down by the apostles. If I remember correctly Augustine and other Church Fathers did not take the 7 days literally either.

“If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT5.HTM

Lol I like how you said " passed down original sin" as if it was genetic. There is no original sin gene. Its interesting that the church also states anyone who believes the soul is passed down from the parents is also anathema. Yet if the church says that Adam passed down original sin then you also have to believe that the soul is passed down! Thats a huge contradiction!

 

[grannymh]

Lol I like how you said " passed down original sin" as if it was genetic. There is no original sin gene. Its interesting that the church also states anyone who believes the soul is passed down from the parents is also anathema. Yet if the church says that Adam passed down original sin then you also have to believe that the soul is passed down! Thats a huge contradiction!

Original Sin is a Contracted State transmitted (passed down) via human propagation. Thus, descendants of Adam and his spouse Eve receive a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

Information source. Paragraphs 404-405 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Links to Catholic teachings.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[someperson555]

What are Adam and Eve symbolic of? What is the meaning of a symbolic Adam and Eve? What did you learn from a symbolic Adam and Eve? Just asking.

I believe adam and eve symbolise a number of things. One of them is that humans were made in Gods image and that happiness is being obediant to God. The fall symbolises what happens when we choose to do our own will rather than his will. It is NOT that he " punishes" you because you did something he doesnt like. That is a very primitive and human view of God. God is like a karate instructor. The instructor doesnt force you to take class. In fact YOU pay for classes because you WANT his instruction. God is the same way. We obey him for OUR happiness. Not for his happiness. God does not force you to do his will under threat of torture. Throughout the bible it is repeatedly said that God OFFERS us salvation. He OFFERS us fire or water. If we want happiness we must be open to God because he knows what things hinder happiness and what things advance it. Now adam and eve symbolise that if humanity were in harmony with God and nature the world would be a paradise. But when we aasume control and we tell God to leave us then the automatic result of that is death and pain. But God does not lift a finger to send it. Its like a drug addict. He spurns reproof but then years later he ends up homeless in a gutter. Did God punish him? No. But if he would have listened to God in the first place and not picked up that needle he would have never had such a fate.

So in summation the story of adam and eve tell us our need to be humble and follow Gods instructions.

 

[santiagoamr]

I believe in some parts of evolution, but definitely not all and a serious scientist would also not believe all of it, jut because of time and the lack of quantity of it even if life began 10 billion years ago which it would be impossible according to modern science since the earth is around 4 billion years of age, mathematicians have discredited many parts of the evolution theory. There are just to many holes in the theory but a lot of it is IMHO correct. I do believe that human life begins at conception and just because of the potentiality of such conception, but I do not know yet if it is a sin to abort such human life or until when it is or it isn’t I don’t think the Church knows either. If I remember correctly neither did St Thomas Aquinas and he was a doctor of the Church, at least he thought that conception was not the beginning of human life.

 

[santiagoamr]

It doesn’t matter. If any pope said we are descended from two people they are wrong. Yes popes can be wrong too. Unless something is a dogma it is subject to correction and clarification. It is very obvious that people existed before adam and eve. For crying out loud the scythians walked the steppes at 10000 BC. You have to be able to distinguish between literal and figurative.
I believe the book of genisis is about the origins of the church! It all makes sense if you think about it. Moses and Abraham and the israelites were actually the very early church. So you could say that adam and eve are the first ones who God revealed himself to. But our first biological parents? No way.

Evolution would say otherwise there should have been an evolutionary Adam and Eve. The study on the lack of races clearly shows that, we are jut one race with one common ancestral gene that means one evolutionary Adam and Eve.