Why did Jesus need to die?

[Faith1960]

The author emphasized in the text that the Council of Trent did not decide on genism, so it is possible to consider variations, however is has not bearing on revelation, which is about original sin and justification:
The Council teaches that every child is born with original sin, which is proper to each man (DS, 1513), and that the justified person no longer possesses the sin (DS, 1515). This is the point which the Fathers wish to teach; the other elements are taken from the then contemporary theology, without wishing by this to attribute to them a greater value than that which they already had.

I thought we HAD to believe in monognism. I’ve been part of other threads where it was insisted on that we must believe in monogenism.

 

[fred_conty]

Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

 

[PRmerger]

If merely his death would suffice, why did not God allow baby Jesus to be killed by Herod, and get it over with?

What else did Jesus do in the process of his time on earth and his Passion?

Because it wouldn’t have been sacrificial.

It would simply have been murder. Infanticide.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t doubt that there’s evil in the world, but that could be the product of the fact that we’re flawed, imperfect beings in a difficult world, with evil forces to tempt us, and nothing to do with an apple, a woman, and a snake in an creation myth.

Why are we flawed?

Whats the atheist answer to this question?

Why aren’t we like this rose is–developing exactly as it’s programmed to develop:

http://www.lsfaonline.com/images/252_ONE_PERFECT_ROSE.jpg

 

[Vico]

I thought we HAD to believe in monognism. I’ve been part of other threads where it was insisted on that we must believe in monogenism.

The key that a Catholic cannot believe in polygenism, if it cannot be reconciled with original sin.

At the time of the statement above, 1950, is was " in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled". If this changes (or has changed by now), then it will be licit.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:37. 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 either that 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

 

[Faith1960]

The key that a Catholic cannot believe in polygenism, if it cannot be reconciled with original sin.

At the time of the statement above, 1950, is was " in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled". If this changes (or has changed by now), then it will be licit.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:37. 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 either that 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Has it changed?

 

[Vico]

Has it changed?

I don’t know.

Consider though that there is more than one concept of monogenism.

1. all persons now living share a common ancestor
2. all potential Christians have a single common male ancestor.

More to the point is must we believe that the single ancestor was at some point the only person in existence?

 

[Faith1960]

I don’t know.

Consider though that there is more than one concept of monogenism.

1. all persons now living share a common ancestor
2. all potential Christians have a single common male ancestor.

More to the point is must we believe that the single ancestor was at some point the only person in existence?

According to philosopher Ed Feser and others, there was a pool of people BUT God gave two of them souls, who were Adam and Eve…

You can Google it under Ed Feser Monkey in Your Soul.

 

[ericc]

According to philosopher Ed Feser and others, there was a pool of people BUT God gave two of them souls, who were Adam and Eve…

You can Google it under Ed Feser Monkey in Your Soul.

Assuming that being the case, won’t that cause problem in accounting for the fallen-ness of the human race for those that haven’t got a soul.? (Could the non-soul population be the part of the daughters of men in Gen 6:4 then?)

Unless the Flood clean up that part of the population. So instead of just 1 couple, now we have 3 couples to start the human race. So now the can is kicked further down the road and a new explanation is required for the 3 couples that restarted the human race. Unless the Flood also didn’t happen that way or didn’t result in the rebirth of the human race in the biblical way.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But the Church does require us to believe in one set of parents. Pope Pius XII in 1950 specifically addressed the problem of polygenism in the Encyclical Humani Generis:

[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter……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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (Humani Generis, 36-37).

Occam’s Razor would have A&E rather than 10,000 fallen couples. And if one plays the number games, then there could be some who may not have fallen which would mean they would not see death. But that is not so. The other alternative is that all 10,000 couples felled and Occam’s Razor would come back in. Why deal with 10,000 when 1 would do?

Where does Occam’s Razor tell you their sons found any women to marry?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

We’re not allowed to believe in polygenism.

Yes, we are as long as we can reconcile original sin with the concept.

I teach at a Catholic college and I don’t know one biblical scholar who doesn’t believe in polygenism. All of them do here.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes, we are as long as we can reconcile original sin with the concept.

I teach at a Catholic college and I don’t know one biblical scholar who doesn’t believe in polygenism. All of them do here.

How do you reconcile original sin with the concept?

 

[Faith1960]

Assuming that being the case, won’t that cause problem in accounting for the fallen-ness of the human race for those that haven’t got a soul.? (Could the non-soul population be the part of the daughters of men in Gen 6:4 then?)

Unless the Flood clean up that part of the population. So instead of just 1 couple, now we have 3 couples to start the human race. So now the can is kicked further down the road and a new explanation is required for the 3 couples that restarted the human race. Unless the Flood also didn’t happen that way or didn’t result in the rebirth of the human race in the biblical way.

Read the article. He explains how Adam and She’s children and their children etc. have souls.

And I don’t believe in a global flood.

 

[Vico]

According to philosopher Ed Feser and others, there was a pool of people BUT God gave two of them souls, who were Adam and Eve…

You can Google it under Ed Feser Monkey in Your Soul.

I read something of his from another site (from 2011), where it states:“Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.”

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

 

[Aloysium]

Yes, we are as long as we can reconcile original sin with the concept.

I teach at a Catholic college and I don’t know one biblical scholar who doesn’t believe in polygenism. All of them do here.

Nothing new here and not surprising, I must say; very sad, however, at the lack of faith and understanding, especially among non-scientist biblical scholars.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nothing new here and not surprising, I must say; very sad, however, at the lack of faith and understanding, especially among non-scientist biblical scholars.

I’m sure there are some who do believe. Delving deeply into theology is very difficult. It requires someone of tremendous faith. One would think studying theology would cement one’s faith, but so many things are called into question that faith is tested. Perhaps some lose their way. I’m not sure.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sure there are some who do believe. Delving deeply into theology is very difficult. It requires someone of tremendous faith. One would think studying theology would cement one’s faith, but so many things are called into question that faith is tested. Perhaps some lose their way. I’m not sure.

All that is needed in prayer and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone can doubt anything including the assumptions that drive the current secular view of humanity.

 

[Faith1960]

How do you reconcile original sin with the concept?

Lily?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily?

Sorry, didn’t see that before.

You’re getting into deep theological waters now. Are you familiar with Fr. Bernard Lonegan’s Law of the Cross and concepts of individual, group, and general bias?

 

[Faith1960]

Sorry, didn’t see that before.

You’re getting into deep theological waters now. Are you familiar with Fr. Bernard Lonegan’s Law of the Cross and concepts of individual, group, and general bias?

No.