C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
What do you mean?
- Status
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Uhh, well you put one thing in the other, and…
I don’t think souls are created by procreation, but instead created by God and placed in the body created by conception. Right?
I don’t think souls are created by procreation, but instead created by God and placed in the body created by conception. Right?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Show me a Neanderthal and I will, in about 9 months, be able to show you some Neanderthal-Sapien babies. Heck, we know this happened. Unless you’re from Sub-Saharan Africa, you have Neanderthal DNA.
That was also a bunch of non-proof since nowhere was any evidence given for your position.
That was also a bunch of non-proof since nowhere was any evidence given for your position.
Last edited:
Very happy to know that we meet with your approval
This was specifically disallowed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis (1950). It is Catholic doctrine that there was a literal Adam and Eve. How they got here, how Eve came from Adam, “whether they had navels” (as the saying goes), and who their children married, all of those are open to speculation. But not a literal Adam and Eve who were our first parents.
I have walked this earth for 60 years and I had never heard the word “tradent” until today. It’s a very good, efficient word, and I can’t imagine how it escaped my notice. Thank you. Sincerely.
That’s a sheer hypothetical. That’s not going to happen. Nothing in Bible prophecy, or even the private revelations to saints and seers, even remotely indicates that the human race will ever be reduced to one man and one woman, brother and sister, before the parousia. I’m all for entertaining hypothetical questions as a thought exercise to sharpen one’s critical skills, but I think I’ll demur on this one.
How is it philosophically possible for the ensouled and unensouled to procreate together?
[/quote]
Given the scenario described above, it is physically possible, and Almighty God would be in charge of the ensoulment aspect. It’s not so much philosophical as theological.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Perhaps if you actually articulated your arguments in such a way that a sensical response was possible, I’d be able to respond to your liking?
What a load of bunk. Can’t refute anything, so just say it’s impossible without any evidence while being directly refuted. I have no idea what you expected from this conversation if this was your idea of dialogue.
What a load of bunk. Can’t refute anything, so just say it’s impossible without any evidence while being directly refuted. I have no idea what you expected from this conversation if this was your idea of dialogue.
B
Benadam
Guest
In order to understand why an act is not intrinsically evil.
Last edited:
I’ll grant that, but then the question that begs to be asked and answered (you would not say “begging the question”, contrary to popular belief, that’s something entirely different, Google it) is whether full-blooded brother and sister incest is indeed intrinsically evil. It violates a taboo in virtually every culture (if not every culture without exception) known to man. It’s something that is repugnant by its very nature and sparks revulsion at a visceral level (libidinous moral degenerates aside).HomeschoolDad:
In order to understand why an act is not intrinsically evil.
B
Benadam
Guest
The repugnance is a tribute to our ancestors who formed it so powerfully into conscience. It’s universality is evidence for how long ago it began and how well sustained it has been. The primary reason, better said the founding reason it is evil is because it goes against human nature to not unite with others and extend familial bonds and so deprive offspring of another set of grandparents and their families and all the opportunity and strength that comes with that.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Not Godwin but rather Benadam, “The repugnance [to perverted sex acts] is a tribute to our ancestors …” Of course some pervert their morals to permit selected perverted sex acts.
B
Benadam
Guest
Well, not the ones that really are intrinsically evil. Not even repugnance at the abuse of the reproductive faculties. Repugnance for attraction to a sibling.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Standard for whom? The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the only true humans at the time, and that Adam lay with Eve and with nobody else. All humanity are the descendents of Adam and Eve. There were no pre-Adamites and no near relatives to Mankind for us to lie with.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Okay, then:
- I’m not sure this is correct. I’m pretty sure the idea is that all are descended from Adam and Eve, not that Adam and Eve are the only ancestors we have that far back. So far, I’ve only seen proof of the former.
- If this is true, how did we wind up with Neanderthal DNA? How did we coexist with other hominids for tens of thousands of years?
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
On what evidence do you base the claim that other hominids existed?Zaccheus:
Okay, then:
- I’m not sure this is correct. I’m pretty sure the idea is that all are descended from Adam and Eve, not that Adam and Eve are the only ancestors we have that far back. So far, I’ve only seen proof of the former.
- If this is true, how did we wind up with Neanderthal DNA? How did we coexist with other hominids for tens of thousands of years?
How do you know the Neanderthals weren’t also baseline humans?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking how I know they didn’t have souls? Or that they existed at all?
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
How do you know they existed?Zaccheus:
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking how I know they didn’t have souls? Or that they existed at all?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh…
Fossils and DNA? Did you not know this before? It’s a well-established fact that we aren’t the only human species.
Fossils and DNA? Did you not know this before? It’s a well-established fact that we aren’t the only human species.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
It’s a well-established theory. DNA human enough to allow interbreeding is human DNA. Fossiles prove the existence of humans, and of animals such as monkeys and chimps. That is not remotely the same as proving the existence of other intelligent species that could interbreed with us.
S
Soft_Lefebvrian
Guest
I think Vermont hasn’t gotten the notice.
J
Juvenal
Guest
Not even close to all of them, lol. Do you know how many Catholic young earth creationists there are on this board? They didn’t pick that up on their own. Excuse me while I vent.Juvenal:
Very happy to know that we meet with your approval
Pray that you never have to deal with a student walking up to you after class after you inadvertently created a religious crisis by giving a lecture featuring dating methods as an example of exponential decay. And now there’s a young man in front of you holding back tears.
Talk about think fast.
The next semester, I introduced the topic with considerably more caution, or so I thought, to find half the class laughing when I mentioned they had fellow students who were young earthers. The next semester, as preface, there was a reminder that we respect other religious traditions in my kingdom.
I’ve long since looked over HG and related statements from the catechism closely, looking for loopholes, and there don’t appear to be any, a colossal error on the scale of opposition to Copernicus and Galileo in favor of geocentrism. We are long past the last moment when we could argue coherently for a universal human ancestor consequent to any speciation boundary. With apologies to the late Glenn Morton, there is a vanishingly small possibility that any modern human could successfully breed with the most recent common ancestor of today’s humanity.Juvenal:
This was specifically disallowed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis (1950). It is Catholic doctrine that there was a literal Adam and Eve. How they got here, how Eve came from Adam, “whether they had navels” (as the saying goes), and who their children married, all of those are open to speculation. But not a literal Adam and Eve who were our first parents.
The specific individuals referenced by HG, to the extent they could be accurately portrayed, would not be recognized as human by today’s humanity.
I first encountered it in Mark Smith’s The Early History of God, a worthy addition to any serious, thoughtful study of religion.Juvenal:
I have walked this earth for 60 years and I had never heard the word “tradent” until today. It’s a very good, efficient word, and I can’t imagine how it escaped my notice. Thank you. Sincerely.
J
Juvenal
Guest
None of those statements are true, to my knowledge, and some are plainly false. I am reliably informed that The Church does teach that all humanity descends from a founding pair, but deliberately omits any statement about their forebears in order to avoid a direct claim that they did were not the product of an evolutionary process.Juvenal:
Standard for whom? The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the only true humans at the time, and that Adam lay with Eve and with nobody else. All humanity are the descendents of Adam and Eve. There were no pre-Adamites and no near relatives to Mankind for us to lie with.
No reference I’ve been given breaks the notable silence on the forebears of that founding pair, and I’ve never seen any hint of a Church statement regarding Adam’s lifelong fidelity to Eve. There is a tale in the Babylonian Talmud of Adam and his first wife, Lilith, \created out of the same clay as Adam, who proved a bit too independent.
References to the “Mother of all Living” are common in Mesopotamian mythology, dating to millennia prior to the first attestation of a Hebrew God, or even the introduction of the Hebrew language, for that matter. My personal favorite is the Sumerian Ninti, not least because of the included pun on Nin-woman + ti-rib, or “Woman of the rib.”
The Church may teach as it likes, but if history is any guide, the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA included in our genomes will be there long after the Church has been forgotten.
- Status