A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
To me a hominoid (pre Adam and Eve) is an animal…an advanced animal, but still an animal.
Last edited:
- Status
A
Aulef
Guest
Great texts. I like this website.
The Immaculate Conception is one of the reasons why Catholics shouldn’t believe (macro)evolution
The Immaculate Conception is one of the reasons why Catholics shouldn’t believe (macro)evolution
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s possible. Still, though… if we’re asking what the purpose of Scripture is, then don’t we reply that it’s to help us understand what we need to know in order to attain to heaven?
It might. Then again, if we worry about what the effects of pursuing the truth are – and if we don’t even attempt to pursue it, because we fear what others may think, as a result – aren’t we playing right into the hands of Satan?
That argument doesn’t resonate with me, since it assumes (without foundation) that a hominin-made-human would have to have been conceived as a human. That’s not a necessary precondition.
S
Sonic
Guest
I think you missed the point. In your previous post you said…As I recall, creation was subject to the consequences of sin – toil in the garden would now be more difficult. That’s not the “bondage to decay” that’s being referenced here?
It appears that you are suggesting that the original sin played no part in death entering into the world. Clearly church teaching and most biblical scholars disagree with your exegesis (see above).Paul explains that death entered the world for those who sin . I’ve never seen my apple tree – or my dogs, for that matter – commit sin.
So, please… if you have a reason for your exegesis, then please post a viable source from which you base your interpretation (so that we can see your reasons for believing as you do). It’s only fair since you asked the same of me (and I’ve been doing that).
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nope. Not at all what I’m suggesting.
I would suggest that the quotes provided here have pointed out that creation became “out of sync” with what it was intended to be, at the point of the Fall of Adam.
I’m pointing out that what Paul talks about is death coming into the world for ‘all’, inasmuch as ‘all sinned’ (see Romans 5:12). And, I’m asking how one might conclude that the death of plants and animals are a result of sin, inasmuch as they are incapable of sin.
It seems a reasonable question.
Paul seems a “viable” enough source, wouldn’t you say? If you disagree with his assertion – and for all that’s holy, it’s a Scriptural assertion! – then how are we to conclude that “all” who die are sinners, if plant and animal death are included in the “all”?
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Romans 5:12:
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Last edited:
S
Sonic
Guest
Then clearly it might be helpful if you would elucidate more fully what you mean so that I can comprehend your statements. I’m not a mind reader.
Please see the exegetical sources cited above (not only see the post, but go to the library and get a copy of it and read the detailed notes). The key to understanding what Paul means is in his choice of the Greek word mataiotēs. It is related to the Hebrew word ḥebel, and is a much broader concept then the Greek word phthora.
Here’s a link to the post above:
As to the how it happened. I will find a viable source that will hopefully explain it and post later.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Is God not Our Father?
D
Dedios
Guest
Your question implicitly asks, at what point in evolution did our evolutionary ancestors become human? Who was the first man, in other words. We call him Adam, but nobody was around at the time to record the event. Genesis is not an eyewitness account of creation, it is a theological account.
The first three chapters of Genesis describes the primary cause of our existence. Evolution describes the secondary causes. A load of none sense arises when we try to discuss one in terms of the other. Belief in God and belief in evolution do not need to be reconciled; you can have both. After all, we don’t try to reconcile Beethoven’s 5th symphony with Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. We embrace them both without question.
The first three chapters of Genesis describes the primary cause of our existence. Evolution describes the secondary causes. A load of none sense arises when we try to discuss one in terms of the other. Belief in God and belief in evolution do not need to be reconciled; you can have both. After all, we don’t try to reconcile Beethoven’s 5th symphony with Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. We embrace them both without question.
S
sevenswords
Guest
God fashioned man from the earth and breathed life into his Nostrils
no where does this imply evolution of species.
no where does this imply evolution of species.
A
AlNg
Guest
Did the Holy Spirit assert that light was created on the first day GE1:3-5 and that the sun which separates night and day was created on the fourth day? GE 1:14-19
Did the Holy Spirit say animals were created before man GE 1: 24-27 and that animals were created after man GE2:7, 19?
Did the Holy Spirit assert that Noah was righteous GE 7:1 and that there is no one who is righteous, not one person RO 3:10?
etc…
Last edited:
S
Sonic
Guest
Thanks! I appreciate your careful response and opinion. I will answer briefly, because this is probably best treated in its own topic.
Here was you original response:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Also, within the Orthodox tradition, there are what is known as Schemamonks. They are considered men of such holiness that they are considered living icons (although this is also something we are not familiar with in the west): Schemamonk - OrthodoxWiki
I have heard St. Pio referred to as a living icon: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/piorome.HTM
When we speak of Icons, we are speaking of something much different from simple artistic expression. They are “windows to Heaven”.
Here are some more helpful articles you may want to read:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SACICON.TXT
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961117.HTM
www.ncregister.com
Here was you original response:
My reason for posting the CCC was to illustrate to you that Icons are part of Tradition, but icons are not simply subjective artistic representations as you point out.
Icons are not simply subjective artistic renditions. You’re understanding of them is not unusual. Icons are usually much better understood among eastern Catholics and Orthodox (btw, my degree is focused on Sacred Art and Architecture). Icons are properly understood as writing, and there are (or should be) strict guidelines in their making. Also, it is often misunderstood that all Icons were made by artists. Some Icons have not been made by human hands. These are the Acheiropoieta. The Shroud of Turin, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the Mandylion belong to this category. The image of Our Lady of Ollignies may also be one such image:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Also, within the Orthodox tradition, there are what is known as Schemamonks. They are considered men of such holiness that they are considered living icons (although this is also something we are not familiar with in the west): Schemamonk - OrthodoxWiki
I have heard St. Pio referred to as a living icon: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/piorome.HTM
When we speak of Icons, we are speaking of something much different from simple artistic expression. They are “windows to Heaven”.
Here are some more helpful articles you may want to read:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SACICON.TXT
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961117.HTM
Icons Open the Window to Heaven
'Visual Scripture' reflects the beauty of the faith. Nov. 6 issue feature.
www.ncregister.com
Last edited:
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
Theo2:
What is meant by slim?
S
Sonic
Guest
You get a heart for Slim Whitman, and also for having Opus as your image avatar. 
G
goout
Guest
What is your point?
Are you saying that God the Father is Adam’s parent?
I think you know better.
T
Theo2
Guest
Should read slime.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No where does this contradict evolution of species either.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
God is our Father, everyone’s Father
Our Father who art in heaven,
Holy be thy name…
The Lord’s Prayer, taught to us by God the Son, Jesus.
God is our creator, our Father
You state your religion as Catholic.
For Catholics, obedient to the Magisterium, we accept and hold holy , the Lord’s Prayer.
Our Father who art in heaven,
Holy be thy name…
The Lord’s Prayer, taught to us by God the Son, Jesus.
God is our creator, our Father
You state your religion as Catholic.
For Catholics, obedient to the Magisterium, we accept and hold holy , the Lord’s Prayer.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
My point is that you’re completely wrong. Is that blunt enough for you?
Adam and Eve were created and not born. Reading the Genesis narrative, I believe that the case could be made that God played a parental role for Adam and Eve.
Why does this bother you? It’s not heretical.
Adam and Eve were created and not born. Reading the Genesis narrative, I believe that the case could be made that God played a parental role for Adam and Eve.
Why does this bother you? It’s not heretical.
- Status