Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide, Hugh.

No, I'm not; and no, it isn't. Would you care to justify your claim? I have already mentioned the International Theological Commission's calling Adam the 'symbol of the original unity of the human race', and you may care to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject. I believe it is on the point of a new edition, but in the meanwhile you could try Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraphs Six and Seven (so easy to navigate...). Although there is a quotation from St Paul in the elucidatory text, which we are not required to believe, the only mention of Adam in Section Six is Statement 375: "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"." Given the subsequent teachings of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, it is clear that 'interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way' is only one way (probably the easiest) of expressing the meaning of Adam and Eve, and that, by extension, there are other ways, less easy to understand theologically, but perhaps more historically likely. Given my previous interpretation earlier, there is no de fide compulsion to believe that Adam was an individual person rather than a group of people.

Incidentally, in some ways it's a pity that the Religious affiliation declaration at the side of each post only gives: Christian: Yes or No, as information. As a Catholic, I would not dream of telling, say, members of the Evangelical Methodist Church what they are 'required to believe', but I find that anybody with a bible in his bookshelf thinks they know what Catholics are required to believe. As it happens, I think, from an earlier comment, that Byblos is a Catholic, which is why I have separated this comment from the previous one, but let this be fair advice to anybody else who thinks I'm a heretic...

hughfarey wrote:Incidentally, in some ways it's a pity that the Religious affiliation declaration at the side of each post only gives: Christian: Yes or No, as information. As a Catholic, I would not dream of telling, say, members of the Evangelical Methodist Church what they are 'required to believe', but I find that anybody with a bible in his bookshelf thinks they know what Catholics are required to believe. As it happens, I think, from an earlier comment, that Byblos is a Catholic, which is why I have separated this comment from the previous one, but let this be fair advice to anybody else who thinks I'm a heretic...

Hugh,

Nobody here has called you a heretic.

hughfarey wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide, Hugh.

No, I'm not; and no, it isn't. Would you care to justify your claim? I have already mentioned the International Theological Commission's calling Adam the 'symbol of the original unity of the human race', and you may care to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject. I believe it is on the point of a new edition, but in the meanwhile you could try Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraphs Six and Seven (so easy to navigate...). Although there is a quotation from St Paul in the elucidatory text, which we are not required to believe, the only mention of Adam in Section Six is Statement 375: "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"." Given the subsequent teachings of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, it is clear that 'interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way' is only one way (probably the easiest) of expressing the meaning of Adam and Eve, and that, by extension, there are other ways, less easy to understand theologically, but perhaps more historically likely. Given my previous interpretation earlier, there is no de fide compulsion to believe that Adam was an individual person rather than a group of people.

Hugh this is direct from Catholic answers and it states that Adam and Eve were 2 actual persons and not symbolic .

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, 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).

Thanks Bippy. That's the kind of answer I was looking for.

Is it safe for me to assume that with regards to what Pope Pious XII said there, he was speaking ex cathedra ?

Bippy: Did you, in fact, read my comment, or the Catholic Answers tract, before posting it? I am well aware of what Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis. I made specific mention of it in an earlier comment. Even there the Pope admits that Adam and Eve's bodies may have evolved, but that their souls were created especially for them (Paragraph 36). But that was in 1950. Catholic Answers' comments are no more 'required belief' than yours or mine. It is a lay-run information organisation founded in 1979 in California, originally to defend Catholicism against other Christians!

RickD: No, of course not. Re-read what I said before, and the articles at vatican.va that I mentioned, at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ip_en.html and https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM.

And also, RickD, I was only ribbing. Heresy is specifically defined as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." It cannot therefore be committed by the unbaptised, and is demands the denial only of Catholic truths. It is not the denial of any individual Christian's personal interpretation of the bible. Moslems are not heretics, and nor are people who disagree with specifically Creationist views, as these are not part of the 'divine and Catholic faith.'

Ok Hugh.

But just to be clear, a literal Adam isn't specifically a creationist view. Unless you call Theistic Evolution, creationist. But I don't think that's what you mean.

I'd still like to wait and see what Byblos has on this. He seemed pretty certain that Adam is a literal person, according to Catholic doctrine, or de fide.

De fide (of the faith) is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.

And, it's fun to see Catholics disagreeing with each other for a change.

Not sure what place this link has in this discussion.

This is Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraph Seven, which continues the story of Paragraph Six. Paragraph Six is the one dealing with the appearance of Adam, and Paragraph Seven deals with what happened to him. The character of Adam is thus contingent on the Adam described in the previous Paragraph.

hughfarey wrote:This is Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraph Seven, which continues the story of Paragraph Six. Paragraph Six is the one dealing with the appearance of Adam, and Paragraph Seven deals with what happened to him. The character of Adam is thus contingent on the Adam described in the previous Paragraph.

Ok. And here's paragraph 6. It seems to me that it says that Adam was the first man. So, not only was he historical and literal, he was also first.

Am I missing something?

RickD wrote:Am I missing something?

Yes! My comments. They are the ones headed "hughfarey". The one relevant to yours above was posted as long ago as six hours previously (so easy to forget, I guess). It said:

"You may care to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject. I believe it is on the point of a new edition, but in the meanwhile you could try Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraphs Six and Seven (so easy to navigate...). Although there is a quotation from St Paul in the elucidatory text, which we are not required to believe, the only mention of Adam in Section Six is Statement 375: "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"." Given the subsequent teachings of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, it is clear that 'interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way' is only one way (probably the easiest) of expressing the meaning of Adam and Eve, and that, by extension, there are other ways, less easy to understand theologically, but perhaps more historically likely. Given my previous interpretation earlier, there is no de fide compulsion to believe that Adam was an individual person rather than a group of people."

Bippy: Did you, in fact, read my comment, or the Catholic Answers tract, before posting it? I am well aware of what Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis. I made specific mention of it in an earlier comment. Even there the Pope admits that Adam and Eve's bodies may have evolved, but that their souls were created especially for them (Paragraph 36). But that was in 1950. Catholic Answers' comments are no more 'required belief' than yours or mine. It is a lay-run information organisation founded in 1979 in California, originally to defend Catholicism against other Christians!

There is NO credible Biblical establishment of the office of Pope - there is no mandate in Scripture for such office or for ANYONE to be the head of the worldwide church. And IF one believes that to be so, they must also ask themself 1) how so many of their official proclamations, by so many Popes, contradict, not only many specific Scriptures, but 2) why have these Popes also contradicted the teachings of each other - IF they have spoken on the behalf of God, or given the authority to do such? And, do you not realize that when the disciples, just told Jesus is soon to leave them behind, and as a consequence they immediately begin to argue over who would be left in charge - instead of Jesus saying something like, "Pete's my man! Obey him!" I mean, if Peter is being anointed as head of the church, what better time to assert that, right? And if not then, WHEN - a Jesus was immediately to be put to death. Instead, Jesus not only doesn't establish any such office or leader, He chastises them by telling them the Church is not to be run like human institutions. Plus, during the 40 days of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances, this hugely supposed important office and it's head, are not mentioned as such, not even ONCE! Additionally, after Jesus returns to Heaven, Peter himself doesn't view himself as some supreme leader of the church. He merely calls himself a FELLOW ELDER: (1 Peter 5) "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and as a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; 2 not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."

And if Peter were some supposed first Pope, able to add teachings and doctrine over others, why A) does he write such little Scripture as opposed to the much more prolific writings of the Apostle Paul? Why doe PAUL chastise Peter for sinning by siding with the other Judaisers, IF, in fact, Peter was to be running the show. Why, in Scripture, is the New Testament not filled with examples of Peter taking or obviously being in charge of the rest? Why is there NO Scriptural or historical proof to show that Peter had ever visited Rome? If one takes Matthew 16:18 to support Peter as the first Pope, their supporting Scriptural evidence is absolutely non-existent! It's purely and only a man-made/contrived doctrine! So, the opinions of whatever Pope, or whichever one's opinions resonate with a person - despite that that opinion might well directly contradict those of past Popes - matters not in the least. Quit looking to what MEN (ANY of them) say about any doctrine or teaching that directly and clearly contradicts Scripture. Scripture is to be our measure. Period! The rest is mere opinion - no matter the source, no matter the church, denomination, whatever/whomever!

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God2 may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 16-17)

"knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

Hugh wrote:
Yes! My comments. They are the ones headed "hughfarey". The one relevant to yours above was posted as long ago as six hours previously (so easy to forget, I guess). It said:

Oh, wise guy huh?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek