S
StrawberryJam
Guest
There is no reason at all to believe that the idea of two literal persons is in accord in any way with evolution.
This is only a religious view.
This is only a religious view.
- Status
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
So are you saying it is an unreliable citation? Someone hacked into the University’s website, and planted a fake article (in 2004), and someone then referenced in a Wikipedia article, and nobody has realized the phony article unit you “exposed” it, almost a decade later??? C’mon!
What do you mean by “fluidly?” It seems that you have accused me of speaking too fluidly (by citing Wikipedia articles, which you don’t regard as reliable). Now you say that I cannot speak “fluidly” (whatever that means). Make up your mind.
I have discussed the Catholic position. I have discussed the scientific (evolutionist/biologist) position. I have provided specific citations, and when you categorically dismiss my citations, I have provided more specific citations.
What more can I do for you???
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
David,
You have done nothing in the way of providing any answers. Your wiki article has warnings all over it that it is in need of citations.
You yourself do not realize the importance of how one must believe by dogma that Adam and Eve are literal and true parents to us.
You do not grasp the implications of this, and simply wave your hands about pretending you actually know what is even on the table here.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I cited two articles - one on the Last Universal Ancestor (LCA) and one on the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA).
The article on the LCA has no such warning. The article on the MRCA flags an uncited claim that Rhodes et al made a particular claim, but this claim was otherwise cited within this same article (and the objection should be removed).
That’s a far cry from having “warnings all over” either article. The one and only warning on one article is invalid, as the (reliable) source is elsewhere cited.
I do believe this (because I believe in evolution), but I do not believe this “by dogma,” because the Church has never specifically taught that this is dogma (did you read the Catholic Answers tract that I linked to?)
I don’t know what that means.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Take away:
Either I am very wrong in believing that a Catholic must believe Adam and Eve are literally the first true parents or I am correct in thinking this is dogma.
Evolution does not agree with this idea at all, yet you keep telling me you believe in Evolution. Evolution is not a faith to agree with. And you have not demonstrated that you grasp what it is.
.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Yes. You are ver wrong in believing this.
No, you are not correct (did you bother to read the Catholic Answers tract that I have cited twice in this thread).
I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that random probability is the causative agent.
Evolution is not any sort of faith. It is a scientific explanation of a biological process.
It’s similar to genetics, which was pionered by Gregor Mendel, an Augustianian friar. He did experiments with yellow and green pea pods, and he revolutionized the world.
Sorry, I have lost track. What have I failed to demonstrate a grasp of?
E
ellzeena
Guest
Thank you for your kind response. I have been studying God my entire life and I am 66 years old now. I have spoken to Jesuits, Franciscans, and regular diocesan priests. I have a spiritual director. All of Christianity does not believe as does the RC church. How do I know? I spent ten years in evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. There is such a thing as “Paulism”, where the words of Paul seem more valuable than the words of Jesus. I know what Jesus said, I know His parables by heart. He taught with patience, humor, a loving frustration at times, and sometimes just plain out of patience or angry ("…a wicked generation asks for a sign…") Nowhere did He say “Wait until Augustine gets here, he’ll explain it all.” Nowhere did He say “Once the Councils of the church make a decision, that speaks for Me”. What He did say was, “Thou art Cephas, and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”Hi ellzeena,
You can certainly disagree with Fulton Sheen, and even St. Augustine for that matter. Things become more hazardous though when you begin discounting the teachings of the Church, and really the teachings of most of Christianity for that matter. And when I use the term “hazardous,” I’m not referring to the moral state of your soul or anything like that. I mean that it is intellectually hazardous.
I’m not sure how you’ve come to know that loving God and neighbor is all that is required of us. It sums up the law and the prophets, but if you are referring to Scripture then there is quite a bit more there; faith and hope being right at the top. Loving God really isn’t possible while disobeying His commandments, which is another issue. Regardless of how far we progress in the specialized sciences, it doesn’t impact these other truths that you seem to be discounting.
I perceive that you are troubled by original sin and the hope of salvation for infants. Yet the Catholic Church hasn’t made any definitive pronouncement on that matter. You are free to believe that God provides grace to those who do not reach the age of reason sufficient to justify.
I would recommend that you seek some spiritual direction from a priest. Hey, the worst thing that can happen is that you disagree.
Site:
“The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy (written in Greek) with certain dualist Gnostics.[2] Its scriptural foundation is based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22), and Psalm 51:5.[citation needed] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that mankind shares in Adam’s sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] Within Roman Catholicism, the Jansenist movement, which the Church then declared heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[4]”
End
These are philosophical arguments taken quite seriously by the Council of Trent and by certain denominations which rebuke them. Note that Pope Pius V, after the Council of Trent, refuted Augustine’s pronouncement that the unbaptized could not have right use of will. After all, how absurd is it to have God remove free will from those who are not baptized, making it impossible for them to repent??
The celebration of the Sabbath (on Sunday, not as in Judaism) is understandable; a day of rest, contemplation of our lives and of God, communion with Him. Where does it say that you will go to hell if you don’t go to Mass on Sunday, except for doctrinal statements made by the Church? Do you not see that it is men, sometimes under the guise of infallibility (which is itself questionable to the rational mind), who have imposed these rules, the list of which are so long that they actually fill volumes of which most people never read, let alone comprehend? Is this what Jesus wanted? Is this even what Paul wanted? Why is what Paul said more important than what Jesus said?
I have a problem. Not stupid, am I (not an Einstein either by any means); not uneducated, am I; not unread. I would like to see an honest discussion of these things that don’t involve my being called ignorant or without spiritual direction. I am ignorant of many things, this is true. These particular things as herein stated are seriously against the Jesus I know and the God I, in my pathetic flesh, am trying to understand.
A
adrift
Guest
You forgot
Authority to speak for Him.
The concept of orginal sin is spoken of in Genesis. It was why Jesus had to redeem us. It was why Adam and Eve and their descendts were barred from the garden.
E
edwest2
Guest
All human beings alive today have a specific Adam and Eve as our first parents.
Peace,
Ed
E
ellzeena
Guest
You’re correct. That is what the pot boils down to: who tells God the rules? WE arrive at them, by what real authority? Nowhere did Jesus say, “Go out and teach all nations and make up many rules and regulations so everyone will know what to do. It’s okay by Me.” Now, I’ve read the Bible clean through three times and not just casual reading, real study (NIV study bible being one that I used). I know what Jesus said. I know what He didn’t say. I understand Protestantism believes in “sola scriptura” however they deny the real Presence in the Eucharist, therefore they really do NOT believe in “sola scriptura” since Jesus clearly stated, “This is my body…my blood…do this in remembrance of Me.”
Evolution obviously does exist in some manner but even Darwin doubted his own theory toward the end of his life. We see no true proof of transmigration of species but we do see leaps in development/physiology. It appears that evolution skips, it doesn’t move along like an escalator. God is perfectly capable of using anything He desires to continue His creation, evolution being one aspect of it. Despite the brouhaha about the primordial soup, no one has ever created life from anything approximating that “soup” without introducing life to begin with. Clearly, it is God who creates life and those things He set in motion - which He could stop in the next ten seconds - can stop all things in Creation; in fact, extinguish all things.
You’ve found the bone I have to pick. There were some fairly evil men who served as Pope here and there. Is what such a person said ex cathedra binding upon God, even if in his own soul there was great sin or apostasy? They weren’t all Bl. John Paul II, as you well know. Am I denying the ability of the Holy Spirit to influence the minds of people? OH NO because I have been so influenced and it’s an amazing experience. My question is: of all the rules, the regulations, the Catechism (which in its girth rivals the Talmud!) WHO TOLD GOD what He could do, should do, would do? Can it ALL be right? Doesn’t feel so, not to me. Ergo: this post.
E
ellzeena
Guest
Look for Mark Stoneking, “Mitochondrial Eve” video, DNA Learning Center.
E
ellzeena
Guest
Oh this is convoluted rhetoric: “very wrong in believing that a Catholic must believe Adam and Eve are literally the first true parents or I am correct in thinking this is dogma”…saying the same thing twice is a tad confusing. I went through twelve years of Catholic education and not once was I taught that I had to believe in Adam and Eve, this is NOT “dogma”. While the Old Testament does speak of truth and refer to actual events, it does so in the same manner that Jesus spoke to the multitudes: IN PARABLES. That is how the Torah is understood, as an allegory under which is contained the actual truth of what the words are intended to convey (i.e., the importance of gematria in certain Rabbinical circles). Evolution is not a belief system, it is a scientific theory (and actually, an hypothesis, since it has not yet been actually proven).
G
Genesis315
Guest
I don’t think we can hold the opinion that all human beings did not descend from one common ancestor:
- When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
M
Michael_Allen
Guest
Hi ellzeena
Thanks for you post, which was full of the love, happiness, mercy, joy and hope found In Jesus.
God bless +
Michael
P.S. As for Adam and Eve - I find what that narrative teaches me is much more about myself, the human condition and the source of mankind in God, rather than it being there to give a literal factual account of the creation and fall of mankind. It is full of truth, even if it is not full of fact. However, I do think this is something we can gives each other space on.
Thanks for you post, which was full of the love, happiness, mercy, joy and hope found In Jesus.
God bless +
Michael
P.S. As for Adam and Eve - I find what that narrative teaches me is much more about myself, the human condition and the source of mankind in God, rather than it being there to give a literal factual account of the creation and fall of mankind. It is full of truth, even if it is not full of fact. However, I do think this is something we can gives each other space on.
A
adrift
Guest
A
adrift
Guest
No where? Saying that what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loose on earth is loose on earth contradicts what you claim.
Please cite the ex cathedra statements that these popes declared that binds God. Of course you can’t because there are none. There are none because Jesus said He would protect His Church. How could you trust His Church if it could be fallible?
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
I think there are a ton of people who confuse infallibiliity with impeccability. I don’t know why so many people have a hard time thinking God would or could protect His Church from teaching error. If a Christian can take the Bible as the infallible Word of God then they acknowledge that God can preserve Truth even if a sinner is writting it down; I mean seriously which Scriptural writer wasn’t a sinner? Anyone? Anyone?
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
Part of your difficulty in harmonizing with the teaching authority of the Church may stem from the Bible translation you are using. The NIV is a protestant translation of scripture using a dynamic equivalence translation method. (See this CA Bible Translations Guide for more on dynamic vs. literal equivalence translation methods.) Also, since it is a protestant translation, it does not include the books of the deuterocanon, which protestants, during the reformation, rejected as being inspired. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with the NIV simply by it being a protestant translation (besides the fact that it does not include the deuterocanon), but consider the following from the above cited tract:
And since yours is a “study bible,” I would think the tendency to insert doctrinal views would be even stronger in its commentary on scripture passages since the commentary is nothing more than the author’s/editor’s/translator’s interpretation of the meaning of such passages. So even though there are many areas of belief in which protestants and Catholics agree, I suspect that there are probably portions of your NIV Study Bible that appear to implicitly or directly contradict the Church’s teaching on an issue that protestants disagree with. This perceived contradiction in turn gives rise to the impression that scripture and the Church’s Magisterium are in conflict with each other. Finally, since God is truth and truth cannot contradict itself, a false dichotomy is set up in which God’s authority must rest either in scripture or in the teachings of the Church, but not with both.
I say all that to say this: switching to a study bible using a Catholic translation, such as the Ignatius Study Bible, may help you with some of the issues you are struggling with.
E
ellzeena
Guest
www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics
Copyright 1988 Thomas J. McFarlane
www.integralscience.org
E
ellzeena
Guest
Quantum Physics: the phenomena of ‘communicating’ wave particles.
See David Bohm.
- Status