According to Catholic doctrine:
>all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
>God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
>Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed. We evolved gradually as an entire population of tens of thousands over a very slow period of time. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.
The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"
Pope Pius writes:
>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.
Who says that Adam Eve had to be the only humans around at the time?
>>392275
Pope Pius
It's a fucking allegorical creation story. The inevitability of sin, original sin, occurs because of our free will, our humanity.
>>392288
Really? Catechism says it was "a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man"
>>392294
Well I may not be a better authority than the CCC, but the Adam and Eve story in the Bible is just that, a story. The writer of Genesis 2 couldn't have been at the event to write it down.
>>392319
Slightly off-topic: But did you know Genesis was ripped off from a different creation myth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism
>there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for
The doctrine of original sin is irrelevant to whether Jesus is the Messiah. For example, even the Qur'an identifies Isa Ibn Maryam as al-Masih, while having a doctrine of original forgiveness and not of original sin.
>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
In 1950 Pope Pius IX didn't find it "apparent" to reconcile the two things, in 1992 they did:
>The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language
Again the CCC, quoting Dei Verbum 15 says:
>"Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.
Is English not your first language, OP?
>>392621
>The doctrine of original sin is irrelevant to whether Jesus is the Messiah
From that Catechism:
> Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
They are very intertwined.
>The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language
The rest of that sentence is in the OP. "but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." Is A PRIMEVAL EVENT not clear enough for you?
>Is English not your first language, OP?
Is it not yours? The CCC clearly states
> Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents
OUR FIRST PARENTS. How can this not be more clear?
>>392278
They were only humans as in only beings with immortal human soul. They may well have belonged to a population of similar hominins, them being animals by not having immortal soul.
Evolution of hominins is a fact that cannot be contradicted.
>>393257
There were no first humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
>>393268
>young Earth creationists
>in my precious Catholic Church
Please stop. The doctrine could well have been explained by God giving soul to 2 hominins out of some population, their descendants eventually outbreeding the rest. Or maybe in some other way, there still isn't any contradiction between evolution of body and lack of evolution of soul.
>>393291
>The doctrine could well have been explained by God giving soul to 2 hominins out of some population, their descendants eventually outbreeding the rest.
Except humans aren't descended from two humans. That isn't even possible, inbreeding would kill off the population.
>>393337
Two beings with souls, I mean. Physically they could be a part of larger population. Also inb4 anyone mentions Mitochondrial Eve, if you think Mitochondrial Eve is relevant to religion you just don't understand it.
>>393337
Obviously Adam fucked a bunch of soulless hominids and so did Eva, then their children fucked more soulless hominids.
Say there was a population of 50 hominids.
Adam fucks impregnates about 8 of them, 3 of them he impregnates twice. Eva produces 2 souled hominids. The next generation numbers roughly 60 hominids, after a lot of babies die, but there are effectively 10 souled hominids now. They fuck around too and the next generation is now 35% souled. Etc.
>>393385
What about Mitochondrial Eve, she might have been the first woman with a soul.
>>393410
Having a soul is a genetic trait?
>>393453
Things like sailing or art existed for hundreds of thousands of years at the point in time she was living.
>>393457
Sure, why not? Otherwise, why do Christians cry so much about abortions and attempt to prevent human cloning.
>>392266
Wow, OP's pic related makes me think of the early versions of Powerpoint when everyone used those color hue transitions as epic radical 90's slide backgrounds
>>393461
Do you need a soul to sail a boat?
>>393468
The soul gets transferred from God at the moment of conception.
>>393481
Well, making boats is surely an example of great intelligence and possibly language, and art is something which requires aesthetic feelings.
>>393492
Have you ever considered the boats and art were put there by God to test your faith?
>>393491
Yet original sin is inherited. Does God just give you a shitty soul?
>>393576
Your sins aren't God's fault, everyone is born in sin.
>>393619
>everyone is born in sin
Why? Did God just make humans shitty like that?
>>392266
>According to Catholic doctrine:
Er. no?
Pope John Paul II in his own address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, declared that since publication of the latter encyclical, “new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis… The convergence in the results of these independent studies constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory”.
Pope Francis:
“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it”, and then also stated “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”
So, you, Op are wrong. Catholic doctrine now accepts both the Big Bang, and the process of evolution as being scientific fact.
>>393959
He makes them good but then they make themselves bad.
>>394006
>I Can't Read: The Post
>>394009
>then they make themselves bad.
Uh... no. You JUST said that they are born that way. They don't do anything to make themselves bad.
>>393959
No, it's called 'Original Sin' and it goes back to the very first transgression of God's law in Eden, committed by Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit, thus forever tainting humankind with 'the knowledge of good and evil.'
>>394032
Eve didn't exist.
>>394037
Uh, well, why are you even posting in this thread then?
>>394052
Because that's exactly what this thread is about. Adam and Eve, even by how Catholics interpret them to be, don't exist according to our evolutionary history and just how evolution works in general.
>>394056
Ok? You asked why, in a Christian conception, everyone is "born in sin." And I explained, in the Christian conception, why that is.
>>394024
They are born that way, they make themselves bad after they are conceived.
>>394191
>they make themselves bad after they are conceived.
Wat... A cluster of cells can sin?
>>394211
>le it's just a cluster of cells meme
>>394240
ALL
JUST
CHEMICALS
>>392759
>They are very intertwined.
I just gave you an example of a messianic christology completely independent of a doctrine of original sin.
The CCC point you quoted shows where the cause and effect relationship is: Jesus is the Messiah -> he has the ability to undo original sin. Not the other way around.
>Is A PRIMEVAL EVENT not clear enough for you?
>OUR FIRST PARENTS. How can this not be more clear?
In my case they are about as clear as FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE is clear - unlike yours. Adam and Eve are not to be seen as a literal ancestral couple, but a metaphor for the first humans to ever walk the earth, who may not be called Adam, Eve or even be two.
Again, the Catholic Church is not a Protestant sect that claims the word-for-word historical accuracy of the OT. She says "Matters imperfect and provisional" are there.
It's the same thing with a 6-day creation, it is not believed by the CC.
>>394056
Read the posts above. Evolution of the body happens, as shown by genetics and fossils, it's the soul which didn't evolve.
>>394032
My interpretation of Genesis is that humans, unlike other animals, can sin because they are aware of good and evil. Notice that upon tasting the forbidden fruit, they felt shame in their nudity. The capacity for morality and immorality were intertwined from the start. And man and woman could not exist any longer in the state of primal innocence for which the garden was an allegory for.
Not a believer, btw. I just think Catholicism has a neat history and interesting ideas.
>>393474
It's meant to show the gradual change of evolution. For example, going from top to bottom you can't say which line is the "first blue" just as you can't say there was a first human.
>>392266
You really think facts are gonna convince the religious? Just look at young earth creationists
>>393959
Its called balance, you know, the conflict of literally almost fucking everything
Catholics believe in Evolution, you mong.
>>392294
It's a Romanticism, for fuck's sake.
Is the prevalence of Atheism among autistics due to their inability to think figuratively?
>>397901
The myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.
What did Aquinas write about Adam and Eve?
>>392266
>The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed.
It implies that but it doesn't necessitate it. In this version of the world we're assuming there's God watching over evolution. Why can't God decide when the apes have got close enough to His image to be human?
>>401911
>It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
>>392266
It was a metaphor :^)
>>401923
As Pope Pius writes
>The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that... Adam represents a certain number of first parents
>>401944
>>394240
>le i've never taken embryology meme
>>392278
The pope is not infallible.
Read your OP and tell me again how it disproves the one true faith.
>>402869
>human life isn't a cluster of cells
>>401948
See
>>394006
The Catholic doctrine includes evolution.
>>>/r/atheism
>>402995
>The Catholic doctrine includes evolution
Oh, doctrine huh? So show me evolution in the CCC.
Oh wait, it isn't doctrine. And the Catholic Church is accepting it to look good while silently ignoring how it conflicts with the CCC
>>403035
>Sciences rarely disprove religion, they only ever support them by adoption
w e w l a d
>>403035
>You're using the pope as an instrument of the Catholic doctrine
The CCC is pretty clear about Adam and Eve, I was just quoting a notable philosopher talking about particular details of Catholic doctrine interpretation and evolution to drive a point across
>>402698
Genesis was probably written during The Babylonian Exile. People who were supposed to read it were acknowledged with Babylonian culture, among others, Enuma Elish, the Babylonian story of creation. Genesis creation story is similar to it, but instead of many nature gods, there is only one God who creates everything. It makes sense that it's made so as to be contrasted with Enuma Elish.
This isn't cherrypicking Bible verses which don't agree with science, it's more complicated.
>>394006
None of what you have typed there refutes the fact that Catholicism requires a belief in first parents, two humans, who were previously bodily immortal, then after a transgression came to know death and sin, and that all humans descend from these two people as is necessary for the transmission of original sin. There were no humans before them, and none other than them at the same time. Believing in evolution is not a heresy, but the origins of man have already been decided by the Church and so any conflict with it must be discarded (polygenism).
>>403053
What about Exodus? Pharaoh's magic?
>>403197
It's possible that the Fall took place before creation. There are lots of different perspectives on this.
>>403282
>Christians believe that "the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . ."
-CCC 421
>>403282
>fall took place before creation
That would mean that Adam and Eve didn't have Earthly bodies when it is stated that they were real, physical people, who had bodily immortality (donum immortalis) before the Fall.
>>403197
Read the previous posts. The difference between a human and an animal is in immortal soul, there could well exist other "people", looking the same, but without soul, at the time Adam and Eve existed. And this exactly what the fossil record shows.
Adam and Eve are the first man and woman. According to the theory of evolution, humans have not always existed, so by definition they appeared at some point. This isn't contradictory at all.
The story of Adam and Eve and of Cain and Abel actually describes the birth of Man with some insight.
>>403784
>Adam and Eve are the first man and woman. According to the theory of evolution, humans have not always existed, so by definition they appeared at some point. This isn't contradictory at all.
I don't understand evolution: The Post
>>403691
So people fucked animals? That's a sin. God wouldn't allow it to happen that way
>>403784
Watch the video posted in the OP
>>405829
Explain the fossil record then. Besides, they looked exactly the same as Adam and Eve.
>>403691
>souls show up in the fossil record
>>392266
>The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed. We evolved gradually as an entire population of tens of thousands over a very slow period of time.
Look up "most recent common ancestor" and "pedigree collapse". When you go far back enough all living humans have a common ancestry even though species evolve as a group.
>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.
Did you not see the phrase "true men"? Ooga booga cavemen don't count. The second clause just states that we can't say adam and eve were allegorical for the evolutionary process, which would be the easy way to wave off the creation story with what we now know about evolution.
>>392278
No, see above.
>>392294
It did, to ancestors all humans have in common.
>>393257
This.
>>393268
The pure evolutionary argument is there were many first humans. The catholic argument is two of those were special.
>>393410
>Obviously Adam fucked a bunch of soulless hominids and so did Eva
More like their children did, which is what Genesis says.
>>394056
See first response.
>>406094
No, that's what I mean. Human bodies don't appear out of nowhere and a person who thinks that Adam and Eve were first things with what looked like human body must explain the above.
>>406174
>most recent common ancestor"
Humans existed long before the MRCA, and MRCA likely had multiple sexual partners
Wait, if the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, why do so many modern Christians still demand that creationism be taught in schools?
>>406410
That's an American thing, mostly around the Bible belt. It's mainly pushed by fundies.
The CC recognizes evolution and the Big Bang as fact, and the OC, as far as I know, usually stays out of such arguments.
>>406358
your post makes absolutely no sense
>>406373
Soul must have existed before Homo sapiens, as Homo erectus already shows signs of modern behaviour. And we know jackshit about other MRCAs than the one of modern H. sapiens.
>>406410
because Christians are fucking stupid. YHWH not Jesus is the one true God, may Jesus's heathenous, slanderous soul burn for eternity in Gehennah for betraying His Chosen people.
>>406373
>Humans existed long before the MRCA
And all the MRCA's ancestors are also common ancestors of humanity. Catholic theology says one pair of those common ancestors are responsible for original sin. There were other homonids, those were still animals existing in a state of innocence. Eventually through the natural processes of population growth the human species shared the common heritage of the fall.
>>406410
The christian fundamentalists that adhere to creationism are not catholics, they're fundamentalist protestants violently opposed to catholicism. Catholic parochial schools have taught evolution for years.
>>401948
Which is why I wrote
>Why can't God decide when the apes have got close enough to His image to be human?
ie, Adam and Eve are the two individual first humans to meet God's standards for humanity, and everything before that is animal.
>>406917
Because you're basically a genetic clone of your parents. And you're ignoring the tens of thousands of other people in the human population
>>397901
I doubt it was considered allegorical before evolution. Seems like an ass pull to me.
>>401941
Lel, doctor of the church to the rescue
Here is more Summa Theologica
>Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin.
>The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it.
>In other animals, and in plants, mention is made of genus and species, to denote the generation of like from like. But it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already been said of other creatures might be understood of him. Again, animals and plants may be said to be produced according to their kinds, to signify their remoteness from the Divine image and likeness, whereas man is said to be made "to the image and likeness of God."
>>408692
He was obviously wrong (there are some parts which are contrary to what was declared by the Church later) on many matters, but no human is free of errors. Most of the Summa is good anyway, except some parts.
CCC 341
>The beauty of the universe: The order and harmony of the created world results from the diversity of beings and from the relationships which exist among them. Man discovers them progressively as the laws of nature.
AND THEY RUN WHEN THE SUN COMES UP
WITH THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE
ALIVE
FOR A WHILE
NO CHOICE
GOTTA FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE WILD
>>406410
American Protestantism.
>>409859
>He was obviously wrong
Yet the CCC shares the exact same sentiment, just less detailed
>>402698
Genesis being a metaphorical tale is church canon since Augustine's times, which is like 390 AD.
Why is everyone on this board a catholic who doesn't actually know what catholics believe?
Did you all just decide to convert after it became a meme?
http://strawpoll.me/6269087
>>410578
My experience in Spain teached me that the normal thing for catholics is to not actually know what catholics believe.
>>410578
Have you seen the size of that thing???
>>411683
thats why you go to your churches classes as a kid
>>411704
I went through catholic elementary school and later confirmation classes. I'm confident I've been through the whole catechism and a lot of personal research related to my love of history, but my formal religious education didn't even begin to scratch the surface of things like the magisterium, different forms of papal documents, the ecumenical councils, teachings of the fathers and doctors and so on. It takes 7-10 years of formal education in the pontifical colleges to be considered an actual expert in sacred theology, and here we are arguing about it on a Burmese shadow-puppet listserv.
I have no idea what the CCD kids learned on the weekends, other than how to steal shit out of my desk.
>>411763
well you're a hell of a lot better off then op just from anything
i stopped believing in all this when I was 16 so I don't really i just get annoyed people are wrong on the internet
>>411809
really care*
>>410578
If catholics were educated in their beliefs and science they wouldn't be Catholic. Pic related
>>412316
Damn, maybe the Catholic church should stop requiring that their priests be educated
So if evolution is true and that God gave everyone souls, would neanderthals and cave men make it to heaven?
>>414222
Catholic teachings (Like Summa Theologica and the CCC) never considered the possibility that man came from animals, they always thought they had come straight from God, as they were made in his image. (See >>408692
and the OP). So there really is no writings on how humans got souls, or when in evolution, or anything like that. The CCC just says that only humans have souls, but obviously this doesn't take into account the fact that there was no first human (see OP's video).
>>414222
Probably, yeah. The Catholic understanding of Heaven is that you essentially become one with God and ever other soul in the Body of Christ. Having a couple Neanderthals in there doesn't seem like a big deal. God's a "Big Tent" sort of guy.
Gets a bit dicey with Neanderthals being unbaptized though. I'm not personally of that train of thought, but depending on who you ask, that could be a problem.
>>392266
Yes, the Bible is pure fiction.
Welcome to the real world, family!
I really don't care about what piece of matter I am made of. There are much more important levels of reality concerning humanity than out biological nature.
Can't you guys see that all these discussions are much more about politics than science?
>>414331
>Neanderthals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWCeIhUMAA
>>392288
>A book called Genesis out of the almost infinite names available
>Genesis
>Originate, Generate. Shares PIE root with words like Begin
>Beginnings of the universe, humanity, etc.
>Oh yeah 100% allegorical not like anyone will ever misconstrue our ORIGINAL (there's that root again) purpose.
I have never received a straight answer.
>>414502
Is this a common misconception with Catholics?
>The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed
No it doesn't, slow evolution from other creatures has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.
>If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one.
Original sin is not the same as actual sin, it is a state of humanity. That said, while the Catholic Church upholds original sin, its not at all necessary for Christianity. Its obvious humanity is divided from God, regardlses if you call it "original sin".
>>417393
>No it doesn't, slow evolution from other creatures has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.
It implies
>There was no first human.
>Humans existed before our MRCA.
>Our MRCA probably had multiple sexual partners.
Trying to fit Adam and Eve into evolution is impossible.
>Original sin is not the same as actual sin, it is a state of humanity.
As the CCC states, original sin is an actual event that took place, "a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man"
>>392266
[spoiler]We are only half-human[/spoiler]
>>417691
And half alien?
>>418217
ayy
>>414502
>>417384
It's a common misconception period, a lot of people think Neanderthal is just a classy word for caveman. Also for many decades it was a subject of debate whether the neanderthals were a separate species or ancestral to us. Now we know for the most part we came from a different line but yes we're descended from them in small part too.
Dawkins thinks he really got Pell there but Pell wasn't arguing the point, it was a very autistic exchange.
>>418732
I think Dawkins was mostly just confused. The Cardinal clearly doesn't even have a high school level of education on evolution, judging by what he says during the interview
>>417675
>>There was no first human.
You're still shilling that YouTube harder than anyone itt is shilling the biblical account of creation. There was no first human in the sense that we evolved as a species from a subset of an ancestral group. That's not even being argued here.
>>Humans existed before our MRCA.
Which was never in debate, you're arguing that the MRCA's direct ancestors could also be considered human, the only point in bringing that up was to explain humans have a common geneological ancestry that goes far more recent than chimp-people flaking stones.
>>Our MRCA probably had multiple sexual partners.
There's no proof in either direction, and even if this is true it doesn't actually make a difference to the argument. The catholic position is that original sin relates to a singular event from one pair of humans as you quote "a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man". Individuals come from matched pairs. Our ancestry is composed of them. In our common ancestry we have many thousands of pairs of parents. Catholic theology says something happened between two of them.
>>418767
Pope Pius wrote on exactly what the CCC states
> 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.
So no, Adam and Eve can't be a bunch of parents. And Catholics also can't believe that there were people not descended from them
>>418777
>Pope Pius wrote on exactly what the CCC states
Pope Pius lived many decades before the CCC was written.
>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
He goes out of his way to say "true man", not just "man" or person. The children of Adam and Eve were true people and not upright apes.
>or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
No one here is arguing that Adam allegorically represents multiple people. He was one person, and could have been literally any of the fathers in the universal common ancestry of every individual human alive today.
>>418801
>He goes out of his way to say "true man", not just "man" or person. The children of Adam and Eve were true people and not upright apes.
Adam had parents that were also "true men". Parent to child is basically genetic clones
>>418812
>Adam had parents that were also "true men".
In the biological sense, sure. Not in the sense of man fallen from grace relevant to catholic theology of original sin. He represented a change brought on by an event in his life, not a genetic mutation.
>Parent to child is basically genetic clones
Original sin is a matter of inheritance but not DNA.
>>418831
>In the biological sense, sure
So can you tell me the difference between a human and a "true man"?
>>418857
>So can you tell me the difference between a human and a "true man"?
One is an animal, the other has fallen from that state of innocence.
>>418874
So nothing? Great.
>>418947
>So nothing? Great.
Nothing if you're not Catholic, to be sure. But for some reason this is a tell catholics what they believe then complain that they don't believe it thread.
>>418954
Humans are animals
>>418874
So you're saying god let humans breed with animals? Disgusting
>>418971
>It's 200,000 BC, c'mon!
No, seriously. You're suggesting that everyone alive is the result of bestiality, a sin punished by death in the old testament
>>419151
Why would you call the unholy offspring of man and beast a true man? Absolutely disgusting
You guys realize that there is a genealogy in the new testament from Adam to Jesus, right?
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
>>419162
>Why would you call the unholy offspring of man and beast a true man?
Because from descent from Adam he'd be afflicted with shame and knowledge of good and evil.
>Absolutely disgusting
We are, yes.
>>419171
So if we crossed man with chicken then it would be a true man? Top kek
>>419178
>So if we crossed man with chicken
Can't be done, and if it could then it would be an open question requiring some examination.
>>419182
>then it would be an open question requiring some examination
Why? You just said that men could breed animals and produce true men in God's eyes
>>419254
>You just said that men could breed animals and produce true men in God's eyes
I said the men without original sin were animals. I didn't say they were chickens.
>>419256
>men without original sin
An impossibility by Catholic doctrine
>>419270
>An impossibility by Catholic doctrine
True men, yes. Original sin itself is the distinction.
>>419275
So Adam didn't have a soul until he sinned? Ridiculous
>>419169
Pretty sure you got the "Abraham to Jesus" part of that Geneology wrong in places. I don't see Zadok.
>>419320
>So Adam didn't have a soul until he sinned?
No, Adam had a soul. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" But it wasn't one marked by original sin until he committed the original sin. His parents may or may not have, but no more than on the level of a "brute". I think the distinction would have been pretty clear to Adam himself after the fact too.
The first sin was uz breedin' through our human desire ;)
>>418857
Eternal soul.
>>419320
The guy you are arguing with is spouting some heretic nonsense, but the difference between animal and human is on spiritual level. Biologically, these early hominins would be indistinguishable, the difference would be on spiritual level - in this sense, Adam was a human and the rest of his species were animals.
>>419363
>His parents may or may not have
Animals don't have souls in Catholicism
>>393619
Says who what authority decided that? It's more commonly accepted that the soul doesn't enter the body until you are 2. And some say it's not until you are named or undergo some other ritual. In fact until the 70s the quickening was when most christans considered the soul to enter the body. Also if it does enter at "conception" does that make miscarriage murder? If it that does then every woman is a mass murderer as most , about 5/6, of all inseminated eggs are destoried by the PH level of the uterus.
>>421357
>If it that does then every woman is a mass murderer as most , about 5/6, of all inseminated eggs are destoried by the PH level of the uterus.
But the woman doesn't have any control over that happening.
>>421538
Abortion is OK. God instructs Moses on how to do abortions on wives whose husbands suspect have been cheating on him.
>Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephahc of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
>“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a cursed among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
>>422207
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion
>>422469
>stackexchange
>>419169
It's just a metaphor, bro :^)
Can't you see the deeper meaning?
>>392266
You ever seen a beautiful sunset? Then something happened to draw you away from it? That's original sin. The time when new generations of people were being raised to not be careful, so that they would interrupt other people's experience of life. Original sin is about losing appreciation, care, and so on in a way the people who noticed it happening thought it would never end again, until someone came to made the whole world perfect. Kind of like an empathic response to a similar idea of wiping the whole world clean with water or fire, because instead you've got a person and they work with existing people.
>>423851
That's nice. I was talking about Catholicism though
>>408343
Religion evolves too, you know. We dont beat women with rocks for adultery anymore, nor do we punish sodomy by death.
Religion is culture, and culture evolves with new technology and world views and such.
>>424598
So much for God's perfect, unchanging morals
>>419169
How the hell...
>>392266
If creationists can make a 6000 year old earth work then Catholics can make this work
Why wont Catholics counter
>>410484?
>>406410
American Evangelical Protestants and Fundamentalist Mainline Protestants
>>392266
>2 people can make an entire civilization on their own without inbreeding effects
Dropped
>>426918
God guided it :^)
>>426918
Easy enough: Inbreeding depression requires deleterious recessive alleles, so just create the first man and women without them.
>>419169
Two genealogies of Jesus, and they're both different. I've heard it said one is from the male line and one from the female...no mention of that in the text of course.
>>423797
People say the ages given are figurative (so people don't end up really living for hundreds of years, that just figuratively means a long time).
>>430099
>People say the ages given are figurative
FIGURATIVE FOR WHAT?
>>431748
634 is a metaphor for old!
Evolution has been debunked by Kent Hovind years ago.
Why are people still arguing about this?
>>432730
NO. STOP. You already posted this b8 thread weeks ago. All your points were refuted by a link to talkorigins. Get the fuck off this board.
>>432766
You can't call something bait and then reply to it.
All you're doing is giving the guy another bite.
>>432730
>Kent Hovind
Immediately disregarded
>>393337
All of humanity actually does have a single most recent common ancestor for both father and mother, they just lived a few hundred thousand years apart.
>>433657
Eve and Noah
>>431748
Convert the years to months. Suddenly Metuselah is 80 y.o. and not 969.
>>434303
So years are a metaphor for months?
Does this work for all the other people's ages too?
>>432766
>scientific facts are bait
>>434303
>When Mahalalel was sixty-five years old, he begot Jared.
Genesis 5:15. By your logic Mahalalel had son at age of 5. Besides, what would be the reasoning behind years being months? A better explanation is that the huge amounts of years between the generations are supposed to show the gigantic amount of time involved.
All these people on here acting like they know the facts because they read it online or in some book which only causes disagreement and utter nonsense.
>>435060
For Christians it is
>>392266
It's ridiculous to me too that someone would try to reconcile the Torah and secular views about evolution and the age of earth. Jesus said "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female", not over million of years he slowly evolved them into male and female. And "or had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." Which affirms Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
If Jesus was wrong than he can't be God because God can't be wrong.
Just joining and caught up with the thread. How does the story/belief that Eve was created as a partner for Adam (when God TOOK A RIB OUT OF HIM while he slept to make her for him.)
What kind of DNA or soul creating/evolving was going on there?
>>437240
The rib is a metaphor for cooking ribs because women belong in the kitchen
>>432730
>what is a flu shot
>>392266
The past few popes have been evolutionists. To say that Genesis is taken literally by the Catholic Church is quite nonsensical.
>>425232
They could easily be temporally indexed. At a certain time, given the way the world was, certain morals followed from that- as the world changed so did its objective morals. This is part of why allegory in the bible in important. It is a book for all time so you need people in 250 AD and 2015 AD to interpret the passages in different ways or else your book would have been to long for anyone to actually read.
>>441776
>as the world changed so did its objective morals
The world has never changed
>>441776
>he thinks time exists
>>440980
I can't read: the post
>>436876
Jesus was wrong about the second coming too
>>446179
He was wrong about neither though.
>>446656
Except he fucked up. Numerous passages in the Bible portray Jesus clearly stating that the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of his disciples.
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
— Matthew 24:34
Jesus also told people that "the time is short and they should not get married, not mourn, not be happy, not buy things, and not live "in the world". This again indicates that Jesus himself believed his return to be extremely imminent.
"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.""
— 1 Corinthians 7:29-31
"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."
— 1 Peter 4:7
>>448511
So Jesus is fallible, so what?
>>448511
jesus explicitly states he doesn't know when the second coming would occur. he also gives a parable of watchfulness.
>>450731
He says he doesn't know the exact day, just that it is soon.
Also, how could God know the day but God doesn't know the day? That's just nonsense
>>450746
the father knows the day but the son doesn't
>>450761
God knows the exact day but God doesn't.
Makes sense
>>448511
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/did-jesus-say-the-second-coming-would-happen-in-the-apostles-lifetime.html
>>450643
Christianity is false
