Who were Adam's womb based parents?

[Gorgias]

Lesser standard… higher standard? What are you talking about?

Let me be more explicit, then.

What you’re attempting to do is to extrapolate invalidly – that is, to use an example that is of a lesser scale in the attempt to prove something of a greater scale. I’ll give an example that resonates with creationists: they complain that micro-evolution exists, but that it does not prove the more general case of macro-evolution. That’s what you’ve got going on, here. You’re attempting to prove something about a violation of divine natural law by appealing to merely ecclesiastical law. That dog just don’t hunt.

Your logic once again fails me

Noted.

 

[Sonic]

What you’re attempting to do is to extrapolate invalidly – that is, to use an example that is of a lesser scale in the attempt to prove something of a greater scale.

Part 1 of 2

Nope… sorry.

Let’s look at your line of reasoning shall we…

You claim that “incest was OK with God for a while in the beginning, before He finally decided it was icky and sinful.” is a “real [whopper of a claim] that strict Scriptural literalism forces upon its believers.”

Now, the way you have written this appears to suggest that this is a fallacy that a literal interpretation of scripture can lead someone into. (Really? How so? And does this rule apply to everyone who adheres to a strict scriptural literalism? Oh, and please point out the strict scriptural literalists in the room and how do we identify them based on message board statements?)

I answered that the notion of brother sister marriage appears in another part of scripture. Given what we know about Jewish tradition, Genesis acts as a prologue to help explain the later events and the giving of the Law in the rest of the Pentateuch.

This was merely to show that Bobperk’s statements are not necessarily invalidated by the points you made.

You then answered by saying…

You’re attempting to justify brother-sister incest (or worse, father-daughter or mother-son) by virtue of a relationship that’s less close than the one you’re defending. That’s a weak argument.

Indeed I was not trying to justify anything (so stop projecting your personal thoughts into my statements). I was only pointing out that your example from Genesis is weak. In the narrative, the Law has yet to be given to Israel. The prologue of Genesis illustrates the origins of humanity and their fallen nature.

 

[Sonic]

Part 2 of 2

Now show me (and this is what’s not clear in your argument) where the Law (Leviticus 18:6-18) was faithfully practiced and adhered to before the revelation of the Law to Israel (which was also when the Law prohibiting bestiality was also revealed). Hence, your appeal to Natural Law seems a rather odd avenue to follow. Did Adam and Eve, after their fall, have a time machine that they used to travel in order to witness the events on Mount Sinai and bring back the Torah to their descendants? If their descendants already knew they were violating “The Law”, then what is the point of the later revelation of “The Law” in Exodus (in both history and it’s use in the narrative).

“Alright! Adam, your glorious leader and father here… Abel… straighten up and quit slouching. That’s a good boy. Now listen up you lot… I’m only going to say this once. Hundreds of years from now… this guy named Moses is going to get this thing called the Law. It says no incest. So, sleeping around with your brothers and sisters is out. Got it? Any Questions? Yes, Cain, my beloved son. Murder? What a strange question to ask. Nope… sorry. That’s out too. Any more questions? How do we know that’s true? Well… there’s this thing called Natural Law. We don’t quite understand it in the narrative yet… No I’m not making this up…”

Genesis contains accounts of behaviors by persons that clearly violate both “The Law” and Natural Law (as we now understand it through revelation). Pointing to citations and examples of said behaviors, in scripture, is not a justification for that behavior. It’s simply pointing out facts.

Hence, your telling me not to give into “extrapolation” based on divine law and “church law” (or divine natural law and ecclesiastical law) also seems like an odd accusation. For that reason, I still cannot follow your logic, because it seems to be based on your own projection of my intentions (not my actual intentions). I’m sorry, but I still cannot concede to your position.

 

[bobperk]

Left unanswered is whether the infused soul would merely make Adam and Eve immortal, or if it would reverse the effects of normal aging, sickness, etc. that their pre-human but merely animal hominin bodies would have exhibited. Perhaps those who take this view just envision a couple of “healthy” hominins (though still subject to normal bodily aging) who received souls and were therefore, at that time, made preternatural and immortal humans in the image of God. But there does seem to be a problem of considering Adam and Eve with severe disabilities, like an Adam who had lost an arm and an Eve who had lost sight in one eye. Would they truly be in Paradise in this condition? God’s first male and female severely disabled? “Welcome to Paradise, guys! Oh, sorry about your missing arm and non-functioning eye…” Is this how anyone has ever considered our first parents in Paradise? If not, then one must strongly consider that, if they take the “ensouled hominin” theory, the gift of a soul also gave Adam and Eve not only immortal, but new bodies.

 

[Gorgias]

I answered that the notion of brother sister marriage appears in another part of scripture.

I still maintain that you’re mistaken here. By coincidence, while reading some Augustine this morning, I came across the following argument he uses (in the context of telling half-truths):
St Augustine:

they who assert that it is sometimes meet to lie, do not conveniently mention that Abraham did this concerning Sarah, whom he said to be his sister. For he did not say, She is not my wife, but he said, She is my sister; because she was in truth so near akin, that she might without a lie be called a sister. Which also afterwards he confirmed, after she had been given back by him who had taken her, answering him and saying, And indeed she is my sister, by father, not by mother; that is, by the father’s kindred, not the mother’s. Somewhat therefore of truth he left untold, not told anything of falsehood, when he left wife untold, and told of sister.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Abraham calls Lot his ‘brother’, even though Lot was actually his nephew. So, Scripture demonstrates to us that Abraham used the word ‘brother’ in a way that does not imply “biological son of my biological parents.”

Likewise here, Augustine makes the case that Sarah wasn’t necessarily the biological daughter of Abraham’s biological father. Rather, he states, that she was “of [Abraham’s] father’s kindred [but] not [his] mother’s.”

If this is the case, then your argument falls apart. Abraham is not evidence of God’s blessing of incest. Rather, he’s merely an example of a well-known dynamic of marital custom among Semites – in ancient times, they rigorously ensured that marriage occurred within familial (although not incestuous) lines.

So, I appreciate that you want to take the story of Abraham in a scrupulously literalistic sense… but it doesn’t seem that Augustine agrees with you here.

 

[Gorgias]

Left unanswered is whether the infused soul would merely make Adam and Eve immortal, or if it would reverse the effects of normal aging, sickness, etc. that their pre-human but merely animal hominin bodies would have exhibited.

Fair enough. And, if you wish to make the case for that claim, then be my guest. However, I’m not making that claim explicitly. Moreover, you haven’t shown proof that this claim is necessary to the argument I’m presenting.

But there does seem to be a problem of considering Adam and Eve with severe disabilities, like an Adam who had lost an arm and an Eve who had lost sight in one eye.

Nice red herring you’ve got there.

No one makes that claim, either. Perhaps you can show, from Scripture or Church teaching, where such an assumption might be gleaned?

 

[Gorgias]

Now show me (and this is what’s not clear in your argument) where the Law (Leviticus 18:6-18) was faithfully practiced and adhered to before the revelation of the Law to Israel (which was also when the Law prohibiting bestiality was also revealed). Hence, your appeal to Natural Law seems a rather odd avenue to follow.

Let me help you with that, then.

Here’s what the catechism has to say about natural moral law:

(#1954)
Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

(#1956)
The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.

(#1958)
The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.

In other words, the natural moral law is always present – it does not need an explicit re-statement in positive law in order for it to exist and be true.

On the other hand, there is law which is “merely” positive law – whether stated by the Law of Moses, for example, or by the Church – and that law comes into existence at the time of its promulgation.

Now, follow this next part carefully, because I’m not attempting an anachronistic argument:

• in the canons on marriage, the Church teaches that it can dispense with merely ecclesiastical law but not the divine law.
• therefore, the Church has the power to dispense with the prohibition of marriages of first cousins, but not the prohibition of mother/son or brother/sister marriage.
• therefore, given the difference between ‘merely ecclesiastical law’ and ‘divine law’, what does this tell you about the difference between first-cousin marriage and brother-sister marriage?

And therefore, if brother-sister marriage is counter to divine law, then it has always been and will always be against divine law. We don’t need to step into a time machine to find that answer.

p.s., I’m not “making projections of your intentions.” Just pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.

 

[mVitus]

And therefore, if brother-sister marriage is counter to divine law, then it has always been and will always be against divine law. We don’t need to step into a time machine to find that answer.

One thing I’m thinking about is that we do see some cases where the Church can’t dispense, but it did happen. Polygamy and divorce for example are impediments to marriage, but were allowed in OT times. So wouldn’t it be possible for brother-sister to also have such an evolution?

Also, excuse me for forgetting, but why are we debating if Adam and Eve could’ve been given their immortal souls post-conception? What’s the issue with them being conceived with rational souls?

 

[Gorgias]

One thing I’m thinking about is that we do see some cases where the Church can’t dispense, but it did happen.

And this is where we have to be careful that we’re not promoting anachronous arguments. But, we can ask the general questions of the situations you bring up:

Polygamy:

• God never recommends it or encourages it
• It is never held up as a good thing
• No covenant explicitly gives permission for it

Divorce

• Permitted by the Mosaic covenant (because, Jesus tells us, they had ‘hard hearts’ and couldn’t handle life-long marriage at the time they escaped slavery in Egypt)
• Permission ‘revoked’, as it were, by Jesus, who says that it was never intended “from the beginning”

So, what I think we see is one exception, which was corrected by Jesus. The “evolution” that you speak of isn’t toward greater acceptance of these sins, but rather, removing any shred of acceptance. Therefore, it’s not valid logic to think that we’d move from abhorrence of sin toward acceptance of sin.

Also, excuse me for forgetting, but why are we debating if Adam and Eve could’ve been given their immortal souls post-conception? What’s the issue with them being conceived with rational souls?

The one argument provided was that Mary was the one and only Immaculate Conception. If one would claim that Adam and Eve were conceived as humans without sin, then this would run counter to Catholic doctrine.

 

[mVitus]

Thank you for clarifying the brother-sister thing. Your answers make sense.

The one argument provided was that Mary was the one and only Immaculate Conception. If one would claim that Adam and Eve were conceived as humans without sin, then this would run counter to Catholic doctrine.

Well, I do have a couple thoughts on that.

1. Isn’t the special thing with Mary’s Immaculate Conception that she was preserved from original sin? In such a case, A&E wouldn’t have been preserved as original sin wouldn’t have existed yet to be preserved from. (I’ll openly admit I haven’t looked at the dogma much beyond knowing it exists and acknowledging it.)
2. If we go with an Eastern Catholic approach to the Immaculate Conception, there are 0 issues because Mary’s Immaculate Conception isn’t special. Everyone is conceived without guilt from original sin. (The Latin view includes personal guilt for original sin. The Eastern view has no personal guilt and instead death is the primary effect. I summarize of course.)

It’s late so I know these aren’t complete points. But I’m hoping they springboard things.

 

[Gorgias]

Isn’t the special thing with Mary’s Immaculate Conception that she was preserved from original sin? In such a case, A&E wouldn’t have been preserved as original sin wouldn’t have existed yet to be preserved from.

Good point!