F
Faith1960
Guest
Most of what I’ve researched says that they weren’t actually human.
Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
- Status
R
RGCheek
Guest
Depends on the topic.
What is an authority in physics is different than what the authority is in religion, and both are different from what the authority is on the local bus schedule or how to cook a good steak.
R
RGCheek
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
Just that Ed says science cant prove our position but it also cant prove his.True.
And your point is…?
T
triumphguy
Guest
Really?:
All the science I’ve read says that Neanderthals are one of the 3 extinct species of humans (namely Hiedelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisovans) and we homo sapiens sapiens are the only remaining species.
But it seems we’ve absorbed some of their genes along the way
Tibetans Are Related to a Now-Extinct Human Species
A
Almagor
Guest
I find the account of genesis especially the account of God, Adam, Eve, Satan, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; extremely profound and very important for our day and time. If the entire account is read closely, especially regarding the lies of Satan and their consequences to Adam, Eve, and us her children; it is obvious that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil did not actually give that knowledge to those who ate it’s fruit. It gave the concept or idea that we humans can tell by thinking what is good and what is evil and therefore don’t have to obey God’s Commandments.
Think about the fact that the Church’s official teaching is that Sacred Scripture is the word of God and that although the teachings of the Church stand on 3 pillars, “Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium; that nothing can oppose Sacred Scripture.”
To confirm both the Church’s official teachings and Sacred Scripture I will quote 2 Scriptures. 2nd Timothy, 3:16, “All Scripture is God Breathed and useful for instruction. *******”." 2nd Peter1:21,22 “Above all you must understand that prophesy of Scripture did not come about by the prophets own intention of things. For prophesy never had as it’s origin the human will, but prophets though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
If the Magisterium cannot oppose Sacred Scripture which says that a prophet or Moses who wrote the Old Testament or a prophet or Apostle who wrote the New Testament then who are you or I to say that the prophet or Apostle who wrote the New Testament had some personal agenda such as opposing something happening at the time, rather than at times, the clear meaning as expressed through the writer by the Holy Spirit?
It is not that Evolution of the Species is false because of some issue of faith although that could be true. The Evolution of the Species is not true because it is bad science. The tactic of the PhD Evolutionist is to present the layman with so many facts and claims that the ordinary College educated person says to themselves, "There is no way I can sort out all of that information and discern whether it is true or not. These people are scientists and would not lie and so accept the Hypotheses (it is not actually a theory because a theory is an hypotheses that has been tested by experiment by many experts and the results from all of the experiments are the same. It is impossible to subject the hypotheses to experiments.
I say that is a tactic because anyone with courses in high school biology, physics, and Chemistry, and can asses things using critical thinking can see that Evolution is scientifically impossible. To start at the beginning, no one who has taken the classes I mentioned should believe that a bolt of lightening that contains only electrons hit water that only contains 2 atoms, Hydrogen and Oxygen ( H2O) and the result was a living being that was made up of hundreds of atoms. It can’t happen. Scientists used to say that the Lightening hit a “primordial soup” in the water that contained DNA, RNA, and all the other substances necessary for the first living creature to be created. It took a lot of time but eventually someone clued them in to the fact that there was no “primordial soup” before there was any life because all of those things in the soup do not occur naturally, they are created by living beings. Then they said that all of the necessary ingredients came to Earth on billions and billions of comets every year for billions and billions of years. Of course if the first life was created on Earth and they have not found any life anywhere else, There would be no way any of that “primordial stuff” could have gotten on any comet.! There are many things like this in the hypotheses of Evolution that scientifically prove that it was impossible for any kind of evolution to have ever taken place.
G
grannymh
Guest
Such an interesting discussion this thread has.
In case there are any Catholics who wonder if it is time to abandon the
Genesis story – here is a very interesting answer.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
In case there are any Catholics who wonder if it is time to abandon the
Genesis story – here is a very interesting answer.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
R
RGCheek
Guest
Not criticizing you, but I find that as a whole our society seems to think that science is the only means of validating truth claims and this is simply false.
Science cannot answer things that are outside of its range of activity, and that range is limited to phenomenal affects of the natural world. That leaves out mathematics, theology, reference data for travel schedules, emotional questions like love, respect, fear and devotion, and 90% of the rest of the things we deal with cay to day in our personal lives.
Thinking that science is the only means of finding answers is a modern myth.
R
RGCheek
Guest
I don’t want to abandon the Genesis story and I don’t see any Catholics that give me that impression.
But I do want to understand it in the way the author or inspired writer intended it, which cannot include meaning as a text of modern science for obvious reasons.
K
Kelt
Guest
Just wondering about the ‘inspired’ bit…(as it is relevant to the thread for it has so much influence on what people believe)…how does the church think it knows WHO was inspired, and did inspiration stop somewhere? Or is it believed that people are still being inspired and how do you know? How do you know that Mohammad was not inspired?
R
RGCheek
Guest
The canon was established by men I believe who were led by the spirit of God. I came to this faith in the Magisterium for many reasons I wont go into here.
I have read the Koran and it is an inspiring work, for the most part. The author who wrote it obviously believed in God very deeply and it comes out in the text.
But was Mohamed inspired in the same way that St Matthew or Moses was inspired? No, I don’t think so. The Koran at one point damns Jews and Christians as heathen and I do not believe that that came from the Holy Ghost.
G
grannymh
Guest
Fortunately, you must be living in a rather safe environment when it comes to direct attacks on Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. There are public attacks by various Catholics including some former and current Catholic clergy. In addition, there are some CAF posts which, in free speech, present the opposition to basic Catholic doctrines on human origin and the actions of the first human Adam. These are usually in the Apologetics, Philosophy, and Sacred Scripture Forums.
K
Kelt
Guest
But there is a lot of hideous violence in the Christian bible…was that inspired by the God who is Love? Seems like both books have tricky, contradictory bits in them - that don’t seem very ‘inspired’.
Some claim that Mohamed himself wrote the Koran or some of it…or at least dictated it.
I thought that somewhere in the Koran it’s taught that Christian/Jews/Muslims should respect each other as people of the book?
K
Kelt
Guest
**
Is it ‘the freedom to act in a right or wrong way’? Well, that again is what makes us human! It’s hardly fair to blame 2 individuals at the beginning of humanity for becoming human!
Without this ‘knowledge’, that we weren’t supposed to have, we would be dumb animals, plodding along and not causing God any grief. It’s hardly fair to ‘blame’ and ‘punish’ the human race for being human!
No, Genesis spells out the human condition - for people to mull over and gain some insights. Sometime around the 2nd century AD someone read it and came up with the idea of original sin.
Let’s look at it differently; Say Adam and Eve were ‘created’ perfect - they weren’t aware of good and evil. They were apparently created fully human, and if they’d done as they were told and not gained ‘knowledge,’ as per instruction, (is that knowledge of right and wrong - if so, how could they ‘sin’?) then they would have carried on in a society without any of this ‘knowledge’ - and God would presumably have been very pleased…how would this work? How can humans not have ‘knowledge?’ - it’s what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom!
Is it ‘the freedom to act in a right or wrong way’? Well, that again is what makes us human! It’s hardly fair to blame 2 individuals at the beginning of humanity for becoming human!
Without this ‘knowledge’, that we weren’t supposed to have, we would be dumb animals, plodding along and not causing God any grief. It’s hardly fair to ‘blame’ and ‘punish’ the human race for being human!
No, Genesis spells out the human condition - for people to mull over and gain some insights. Sometime around the 2nd century AD someone read it and came up with the idea of original sin.
R
RGCheek
Guest
Some of the worst violence in human existence is inspired by love and the need to eliminate threats to the object of that love.
‘Love’ does not equate to nonviolence, but quite the opposite.
Matthew Chapter 10
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
Most of these ‘tricky’ passages are due to ignorance of the setting, transcription error and prejudicial preferences in interpretation.
They are minor trivialities used to undermine the Bible as a moral guide.
Mohamed claimed to transcribe what God physically told him.
There is a chronological sequence to the Surats of the Quran that is key to one’s theological understanding of the message. The earlier Surats that are contradicted by later Surats are of no authority. A century ago the passage you speak of was considered the latest Surat by most Sunni, but the Wahabi reform movement that began in the Saudi Peninsula in the 1800’s changed the sequences so that the passage denouncing Jews and Christians as heathen became the latest and thus relevant passage from the Koran.
K
Kelt
Guest
Whoa…!! That is getting onto some dangerous territory!! It justifies anything in the name of any ideology! You must view ISIS with a certain amount of respect - they’re ‘eliminating threats’ to their ideology…shouting Allah Akbar!
Mohamed claimed to transcribe what God physically told him.
So he was inspired…
On no, the Wahabi version of Islam is a fairly new and very nasty version of Islam. Just because its followers view Christians and Jews like that, does not mean that the rest of Muslims believe that! They are still talking about being people of the book! It’s like someone picking out the Westboro baptists as the ‘new’ face of Christianity! If Wahabism hadn’t had the vast wealth of the Saudis behind it, it wouldn’t have made such a nasty mark on the world. Don’t taint the rest of Islam with the Wahabi madness!
F
Faith1960
Guest
Yeah. Really. Ok so your link equates them with humans but most of what I’ve read, including a link from someone here (Ed?), that doesn’t. So we don’t know if they were human or not.
And if they weren’t human, then, again, what does that say about us, we aren’t fully human?
What does that say about our ancestors? They didn’t all have rational souls? And if they didn’t how do we know we have rational souls?
K
Kelt
Guest
We don’t know and we won’t know.
Now we’d better go and think about how we can love and help our neighbours and get on with it! Then at least we’ll have done our best.
Just because we really really want to know answers, doesn’t mean we can or should ever get them!! We’ll have to get over it!
H
Hans_W
Guest
The author you are referring to, Dr Dennis Bonnette, is entitled to his view, so is Ken Ham. For good reasons he is not on the panel of science experts which advise the Pope.
F
Faith1960
Guest
“We don’t know” meaning us, or paleontologists and other scientists will never know.
- Status