To say that evolution is "perfectly compatible" with the Bible is an overstatement. For example, evolution claims that there was death way before Adam and Eve existed. Yet, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that death came from original sin, which was caused by Adam and Eve.
The Vatican Evolves
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Gotholic said:
I was taught that the story of Adam and Eve was the parable explaining original sin (man becoming aware of himself, God giving man free will), not that they were actual events.
Professur said:
Could you please explain what you mean?
You assume Adam was not a homo sapien. So that must mean he was not a bipedal person who walks upright.
That is how some people portray Adam.
Most Bible scholars believe man is created in God's image and likeness in his spirit and in his soul (the mind, will, and emotions), but not physically. However, you could argue that man was also created physically in God's image since there is biblical references that God has eyes, ears, a face, hands, feet, arms, a mouth, and a head.
Enoch and Elijah walked with God and Moses saw God's back. So if man was created in the image and likeness of God then Adam would surely would have been walking upright like God.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
That post is bizarre.
Bobby Hogg said:
Then you were misguided.
In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated, "When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
chcr
Too cute for words
Interestingly, form the very same encyclical:
Evidently, Pius agreed with Bobby, whether or not you do, Gotholic. I hold another opinion myself. The current attention on the vatican's stand is good copy but ultimately meaningless. The vatican simply restates Pius's assertion that it is possible to be catholic and still accept evolution, as do most catholics I know.
Evidently, Pius agreed with Bobby, whether or not you do, Gotholic. I hold another opinion myself. The current attention on the vatican's stand is good copy but ultimately meaningless. The vatican simply restates Pius's assertion that it is possible to be catholic and still accept evolution, as do most catholics I know.
chcr said:
Homo sapiens are humans. It looks like Professur was saying that Adam was not a homo sapien since he said Adam was the first "man" but not the first "human". I ment to say that since Adam was not a homo sapein then he would have not of been a bipedal person who walked upright since evolution claims we "evolved" that form of locomotion.
BeardofPants
New Member
Jeebus, homo sapiens are not the only hominids that were bipedal. 
chcr
Too cute for words
Sorry again, but you're still not making sense. Bipedal locomotion evolved long before homo sapiens. May I suggest you read some books on evolution before presenting these arguments? It's clear that you have no real knowledge of the subject. Not liking the idea is not enough knowledge about a subject to debate it sensibly.Gotholic said:
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Gotholic said:
You're mixing me up with someone else.
I said your post was bizarre because:
- Homosapiens were not the first bipedal species of ape or human (maybe you mean the first to walk upright, which would also be wrong)
- You mentioned God being bipedal. God is supposedly a metaphysical (i.e. defies description) being, made up of 3 divine entities. I think suggesting he is bipedal sort of misses the point about God.
I don't think I was misled, either, given that I was taught by priests on the subject. I'm not really interested in Papal decrees or whatever, however I assume most priests are up to date with them.
The Catholic faith does not place a great deal of emphasis on Old Testament scripture, given that it is the work and teachings of Christ and his disciples that the religion is founded upon. Christ often contradicted much of the Old Testament and "updated" the notion of God.
In fact, some of our time in class was spent having a good old laugh at the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus.
chcr said:
Bobby said he was taught that the Adam and Eve story of original sin was not an actual event. Pius was clear that it was an actual event. Your quote from the same article does not contradict it whatsoever.
Now let's take a closer look at that quote...
Is Pius saying you can be a catholic and believe in evolution? Yes!
But remember...
What Pius is saying is that you can be a catholic and believe in evolution as long as it doesn't conflict with sacred theology. So you can't believe that the earth was created by chance and that humans were also created by chance. Everything has a Creator. Also, you can't believe there was death before Adam and Eve since the Catholic Church teaches it came from orignal sin by them.
Now some catholics believe in original sin and believe in evolution and that's fine. But I find it hard to be a catholic and believe in evolution when it says death was around before man. This evolutionary belief contradicts sacred theology.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Gotholic said:
Son, either you need to get out more, or you really need to invite your priest to supper and get down to brass tacks.
Genesis, God created all. Personally, I like to think that He's a lazy prick like me, and wouldn't work any harder than he had to. Being omniscient, the concept of "butterfly wings" is nothing but simple math to Him. Start a tiny effect, and wait until it builds what you want. Tada, you have Homo Sapien. Then, when you've got him built as you want him, you give him a soul. (you did know that animals don't have souls, didn't you?) Now you've one MAN surrounded by animals (homo spapiens, homo sapien neandrathal, etc). Well, it's a bitch to have a spiritual discussion with something that doesn't have a spirit, so God gives him someone to talk to. Take a small part of the soul you gave the first one, and give it to another. Since the soul is infinite, both have full souls now.
Any questions so far?
chcr said:
I think you misunderstood me when I said "we". When I said "we" I ment our present state and not specifically homo sapiens.
I never said that bipedal locomotion was evoloved with the homo sapiens. But it looks like the Professur is saying that Adam was not a homo sapien because he believes Adam was not the first human. So since God created the first man and since we originally did not have bipedal locomotion as claimed by the evolutionists then Adam did not have bipedal locomotion.
For those who are catholic and believe in evolution then they must believe that Adam did not have bipedal locomotion since evolution claims that we did not have that form of locomotion initially.