Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Of course it is…God did not create hominids. You claim the concept of hominids being on earth is based on observation but who’s observation? Certainly not through Scripture.
- Status
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
That’s just too sci-fi for my liking. I can’t imagine God creating the form of man but not breathing life into him/her. If this ‘humanid’ were not fully ‘whatever’ why would any complete man/woman mate with it??? It makes no sense especially when God specifically directed man to join with woman and vice versa in order to populate the world.
It also raises the question of when you believe - or when these people who ‘observed’ humanids existed believe - a soul enters a body. Scripture has the soul part of the person from conception. When/how would these not fully human things get their souls? If they don’t have souls how would they create new life complete with souls?
S
steveandersen
Guest
How can you be partially descended from someone?
Either you are or you aren’t
S
steveandersen
Guest
Well God created all living things so he definitely created hominids
Well, I’m a hominid, you’re a hominid, …we’re all hominids. Scripture is loaded with them
I’ll probably observe 20 on the way home tonight and then see more when I turn on the news.
C
CollegeCatholic
Guest
Why is it such a big deal that there were biological, unnamed siblings that were being married? Even if there existed “humanoids” outside of Adam and Eve, “Humanity” must find it’s roots in the only two creatures that God considered “Human” and that is Adam and Eve. They gave birth to offspring who then gave birth to additional offspring and son on and so forth. There is no reason to think that Cain mated with a goat or a pseudo-human, rather, it makes perfect sense that he “married” his sister. By modern standards it does indeed sound ludicrous but get over it.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Our museums are loaded with almost humans
When were souls was breathed into them? When did they cross the line? God only knows.
If they were human in every other way than having a soul?
gotta be better than marrying your brother/sister
Humans evolved from something that wasn’t human. Each generation getting a little bit close as He molded us from the stuff of the earth. At some point they crossed the line. Adam and Even were the first ones and received their souls. God could have done it at any point. At conception sounds fine to me.
All their decedents from then on were conceived with souls.
C
CollegeCatholic
Guest
Perhaps “marrying” an animal would be preferential to marrying one’s sibling by your standards but if you have any understanding of the unitive/procreative aspects of marriage and their parallels with the Trinity, I must question how you could accept beastiality as being a valid means of propagating God’s chosen creation. Not only does your view fly in the face of the Deposit of the Faith but it also lacks rationality in light of the nature of marriage/conjugal union.
O
Ortho
Guest
Aquinas has the rationale soul entering the body after conception. I presume he was acquainted with scripture.
Perhaps souls come from descent from anyone who has one. One of the soulless mates with an ensouled, and -presto- the kid has a soul.
O
Ortho
Guest
How do you tell the difference between a hominid with a soul, and one without?
S
steveandersen
Guest
So you’re saying that God can make a special exception to the taboo on incest for the sole purpose of propagating the species
An exception to be ended after X generations
BUT
He cannot make a special exception for mating with a person who is human in every physical respect except for having a soul for the sole purpose of propagating the species;
An exception to be ended after X generations?
Personally I think God could do anything He willed.
If he willed his creations to survive and populate the world then he would have provided a mechanism for that (a non inbreeding mechanism seems to make sense)
And since we have overwhelming evidence that He evolved us over a period of millions of years prior to humans having a soul, and since we have no evidence of humans going through a genetic bottleneck, and since we know that faith and reason can’t contradict therefore I’ll stick with my interpretation
C
cocot
Guest
There’s gotta be a punchline to that!
C
CollegeCatholic
Guest
How do you tell between a chimpanzee and a human? I’m not sure what sort of question this is… I am not in the position to make clear distinction between animals with human features and actual humans, those physical, created entities that God gave souls. What I CAN say is that the conjugal act is inseperable from life giving love and a creature without a soul is incapable of loving. God did not establish humanity through animalistic “mating” but through the conjugal act that symbolizes/points to the Trinity.
Considering Eve was formed from the rib in Adam’s side, they are pretty much as genetically related as can be and thus, are inherently “insestual.” Your reasoning falls on its face immediately with the nature of Adam and Eve’s creation and nature.
As stated above, God’s design for conjugal love, for sex, and not simply for instinctual mating, is unique to humanity and you are failing to see this. Humanity is not a race of “half souls” and we did not inheret “half original sin.” That without a soul is both incapable of love and incapable of sin and as such, does not find itself in God’s design for humanity and conjugal love.
Unfortunately for your obvious “problem” with “inbreeding” God chose this unique approach. God could have also “saved” the world without sending the Son to die for the most unworthy “us” and yet that is what He willed. It doesn’t make logical sense to do so, but we go with it. Sometimes Love is not “logical.”
I also believe in Evolution. There is no contradiction in reason on my part. The only contradiction in reason is your belief that we are descendents of humans and nonhumans, souled and souless… we are all descendent of Adam and Eve and as such, there is not room to believe that there were creatures outside of that initial family that were part in the procreative process of human expansion. Your view of sex seems to be inline with modern views that seek to seperate love from sex and you may find a more open ear with them.And since we have overwhelming evidence that He evolved us over a period of millions of years prior to humans having a soul, and since we have no evidence of humans going through a genetic bottleneck, and since we know that faith and reason can’t contradict therefore I’ll stick with my interpretation
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
It would seem to me the taboo came after the propagating of the species…since God created man and woman, directed them to procreate…it is clearly within His pervue **when **to say ‘enough’ with the intermingling and then deem it taboo. Man did not come up with these social customs, God directed them, they followed and passed them down to further generations.
If you have no problem believing man was molded from the earth over a period of time to evolve into full humans why do you have a problem believing God made man and woman complete in a day? What restriction do you impose upon God which would prohibit Him from accomplishing His creation in a day as opposed to eons? You seem to accept He molded man from earth and at some point breathed life into him and gave him a soul…so why does something that unimaginable have to take place slowly over time instead of within a day in order for you to accept it?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Could God have created humans in a day? Sure He could
BUT He certainly made it look exactly like He evolved us over billions of years and I don’t think of God as a practical joker or deceiver type
So…
there has to be a way (a way we may not ever understand completely) to reconcile what we know with what we believe. We know how long there have been anatomically modern humans and we have a pretty good idea of how and when we distributed ourselves across the planet.
Of course since the OP was about a CCD class we should probably not get too deep into the science.
Perhaps Philomena could just be honest and tell the children that scripture doesn’t say where those spouses came from so we don’t know.
Not something 8th graders are going to settle for too easily
Which is why I offered another explanation
S
steveandersen
Guest
There are a quite a few ways but what does that have to do with anything?
I must admit that the distinction between full humans and almost but not quite humans does have some unfortunate Gnostic connotations but I’m just trying to reconcile what we know with what we believe.
We know that individuals don’t evolve, populations do. So the original ensouled pair had to be genetically compatible with their contemporaries.
Yes I know that and it is wonderful imagery. But …. Since we are evolved from things that didn’t have an eternal soul, there was mating without love for millions of years.
some would even opine that development of love is a contimum rather than an on/off thng.
I’m not sure if that holds with the soul…there is no way to test that
Once again that is wonderful imagery but there is no evidence for that.
You can’t have half a soul. All Adam & Eve’s descendants have souls and original sin.
My point is that the Bible says nothing about where the spouses came from. God clearly would have a mechanism for his creation to survive. We had evolved for millions of years reproducing without love before we received souls. All I’m saying is that a transitional one off is a step toward reconciling what we know and what we believe.
Love may not be logical but biochemistry often is. I’m not sure why you needed to put the words problem and inbreeding in quotes. (or logic for that matter since I didn’t use that word)
Well if you accept evolution then you accept that we are the descendants of non-humans.
At some point we got souls
The details of that transition are unknown
That’s all I’m saying
CollegeCatholic said:
I said nothing of my views on sex or love so your assumptions about them seem a little high handed. Regardless of the relationship between sex and love; there is no doubt that sex is not separate from reproduction.
R
RobertinRSA
Guest
All the stories before Abraham are just really good folk tale and cannot be attributed as concrete fact.
Semantics!
Semantics!
O
Ortho
Guest
Originally Posted by CollegeCatholic
…… Your view of sex seems to be inline with modern views that seek to seperate love from sex and you may find a more open ear with them.
Most of human history did not equate love with sex. That is a contribution of modern times.
…… Your view of sex seems to be inline with modern views that seek to seperate love from sex and you may find a more open ear with them.
Most of human history did not equate love with sex. That is a contribution of modern times.
B
buffalo
Guest
God could have simply “inserted” Adam into the timeline as He wished, regardless of what was happening in the animal kingdom.
B
buffalo
Guest
Uh No! That’s how we are interpreting the limited data set. We could be flat out wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sources please!
- Status