Incest And Adam+Eve

[Papist]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1330808962' post='2395790']

However as Cat pointed there are some parts of Scripture that are dogma and the interpretations are not open to debate.
[/quote]

Yes some, not all, which is my point.

[Hubertus]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1330786343' post='2395648']
sorry, I actually knew that but, while I'm tangenting, why do we say man caused EVERYTHING to fall when the angels had already fallen? Does "everything"=everything in creation except the angels? And the consequence of the angels falling was relatively insular then, only really affecting themselves? Furthermore, man didn't bring physical death into the world, as animals/plants etc died before Man existed, so initially doesn't that seem like a design flaw? I assume there's an explanation somewheres. Help a sista out yo
[/quote] What Aloysius was saying was that the fall of man acted retroactively in bringing death about in the world (using the examples of mortal dinosaurs).

But that does make it look like man was destined to fall, still. How could something like that be retroactive to nature when it depended on the free choice of one man and one woman? I understand how Christ's death could be retroactive in saving Mary from sin, because it deals with salvation and the immortal, but I'm not sure I understand how Adam and Eve's choice caused animals that existed before them to die, because before they made that choice surely they would have lived in a world that wasn't suffering from the fall... Right?

[Hubertus]

Hm, but I suppose that shows how all-encompassing the word "cosmos" can be; it's used to not only indicate nature in the present and future but also the past, because matter is matter and time only acts within matter and the physical realm ("time" is, in a sense, just a measurement concerning matter). So if man made a decision that brought down all of the physical realm as opposed to the eternal, then it does indeed follow that time would be irrelevant, or in other words that all of physical time would be affected by it (within man's faculties - obviously God has the ability to do away with this at the Second Coming).

Edited March 4, 2012 by Hubertus

[Aloysius]

indeed, Hubertus, you have answered your own question. amazing to think how significant God made us to be.

God is not just waiting for the second coming to redeem all material creation from the fall, He is in the process of doing it. It was the incarnation of Christ that restores all things... here and now the Church as the body of Christ is redeeming all of material creation. it is on the path towards perfection. and the final culmination of everything will make all things perfect... the whole cosmos... think about that with the implications of what you said above, outside of time.

somewhat related, I'd recommend the writings of Blessed Hildegard of Bingen for meditations on the redemption of creation in the incarnation, if I remember correctly there's some beautiful stuff there that I would think might relate don't have anything specific in mind, just thought of her and thought it might be nice to reread her stuff while thinking of what I'm talking about here. she's a favorite of mine when I actually remember to think of her haha.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Louie' timestamp='1330718884' post='2395378']
[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/key-age-of-earth"]http://www.answersin...ey-age-of-earth[/url]
[/quote]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-theory-of-first-americans-places-stone-age-europeans-in-delmarva-20000-years-ago/2012/02/28/gIQA4mriiR_story.html?hpid=z5"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-theory-of-first-americans-places-stone-age-europeans-in-delmarva-20000-years-ago/2012/02/28/gIQA4mriiR_story.html?hpid=z5[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

I have to say that I've yet to see an adequate explanation of dendrochronology and a young earth (well, haven't seen adequate explanations of radiometric dating, either, but I think dendrochronology is a bit easier to look at). Even AiG admits that they can't fault the Bristlecone Pine chronology, which goes back over 8000 years, though they theorise that maybe the rings were mismatched (though they see no evidence of this). The problem I have with things like that is saying "x is the conclusion" before looking at the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence and seeing what conclusions can be drawn. I really don't see a conflict between the Biblical account and the ages we know from various dating methods. And, as I mentioned earlier, it's a bit hard to dismiss an earth older than 6000 years when all the dating methods point to an older earth. If it were just one or two, ok, there could be a question, but all of them?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1330894648' post='2396189']
I have to say that I've yet to see an adequate explanation of dendrochronology and a young earth (well, haven't seen adequate explanations of radiometric dating, either, but I think dendrochronology is a bit easier to look at). Even AiG admits that they can't fault the Bristlecone Pine chronology, which goes back over 8000 years, though they theorise that maybe the rings were mismatched (though they see no evidence of this). The problem I have with things like that is saying "x is the conclusion" before looking at the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence and seeing what conclusions can be drawn. I really don't see a conflict between the Biblical account and the ages we know from various dating methods. And, as I mentioned earlier, it's a bit hard to dismiss an earth older than 6000 years when all the dating methods point to an older earth. If it were just one or two, ok, there could be a question, but all of them?
[/quote]
Walk in a national park in Australia and see thousands of layers of ancient sea beds comprising the sedimentary rock and also note periodically how there appears to be some major event such as around 65million years ago. or where it has been turned on it's side such as Ayers rock and then weathered away which would take many thousands of years. A young earth is either impossible or God created a great illusion. Is there a reference in the Bible where God creates illusions to fool or mislead us?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1330895652' post='2396197']

Walk in a national park in Australia and see thousands of layers of ancient sea beds comprising the sedimentary rock and also note periodically how there appears to be some major event such as around 65million years ago. or where it has been turned on it's side such as Ayers rock and then weathered away which would take many thousands of years. A young earth is either impossible or God created a great illusion. Is there a reference in the Bible where God creates illusions to fool or mislead us?
[/quote]Exactly my thoughts. I dont think God aims to trick us. Nature reflects Him, in a way, I think.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1330832329' post='2395991']
What Aloysius was saying was that the fall of man acted retroactively in bringing death about in the world (using the examples of mortal dinosaurs).

But that does make it look like man was destined to fall, still.
[/quote]
This and Aloysius response raises my earlier question. God making angels and humans that fall seems to reflect on Gods competence in making what he intended as being perfect. It's a bit like a parent who would let a toddler play near a swimming pool with a nice appealing toy floating in the water and then telling the child not to go near it. Was man destined to fall? To be saved, first you must fall! Was Mans fall and salvation part of Gods process to perfect man for Eternal life.

Another question for Aloysius. [i]God was walking in the garden in the razzle dazzle of the afternoon[/i]. Whoa, wait, what? What is the significance of this statement? He made us in his image. So yeah why wouldn't he enjoy the basic pleasures of humanity as well as being God? [size=2](Note there are question marks here.)[/size]

Pursuing the origin from one pair. An Asian, an Aboriginal and a Caucasian have some differences but essentially the physiology is the same so there is no denying a common source. But I'm fascinated by our sponsors post. Can't seem to locate it at the mo but dUSt posted that there was an A&E in Africa, Europe and two or three other locals. What does this mean?

note, the philta changed the word meaning approximating tepid to razzle dazzle.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Aloysius]

dUSt posted that on the first page... it contradicts not only Humanari Generis but also the biological history, as evolutionary science has pointed to us all being descended at least from a single community in Africa. so yeah, he was wrong, but everyone's allowed one or two mistakes, though

God made free will. Free will gave us the possibility of falling. There were two things that could have happened, either we didn't fall and God incarnated and brought all of creation to perfection, or we did fall and God incarnated and suffered and died and brought all creation to perfection. either way He ultimately planned to lift Human nature up to the divine, but there were indeed two possibilities. the fact that He knew in advance what would happen doesn't mean He caused it to happen, it was Adam and Eve who freely chose to disobey God, God intended to give them the capability of doing that but that doesn't mean God intended them to disobey Him.

it doesn't make God incompetant if angels and humans fell, it makes God the brilliant author of something called free will. He of course directs the outcome of free will towards ultimate perfection.

as regards God "enjoying the basic pleasures of humanity", I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. God enjoys all of the creation that He created; "walking" was obviously part of the idioms of the story not intended to indicate a physical body, which God did not have until He incarnated in the Person of Jesus Christ.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1330899288' post='2396225']
dUSt posted that on the first page... it contradicts not only Humanari Generis but also the biological history, as evolutionary science has pointed to us all being descended at least from a single community in Africa. so yeah, he was wrong, but everyone's allowed one or two mistakes, though
[/quote]
Glad I'm not alone. I suppose though when yer teh boss yer allowed to make as many mistakes as you like.



[quote]as regards God "enjoying the basic pleasures of humanity", I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. God enjoys all of the creation that He created; "walking" was obviously part of the idioms of the story not intended to indicate a physical body, which God did not have until He incarnated in the Person of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Yes, God walking in the garden in the coool of the afternoon is an idiom, but for what? That he enjoys human pleasures? Why not, he's God, of course he can! But is there anything else you can see in that? God obviously doesn't need to shelter from the midday sun.
Yeah I know! Too many questions. Fascinating though!

[Louie]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1330782012' post='2395638']
You skipped a couple of things, like how the sun and moon and stars (in other words, the entire universe) resided below this firmament, and how the earth was flat and had corners, and how it was sitting on pillars, etc...

If you've been reading this thread, then you would know that we have been insisting that Adam was a real person, so for some reason I doubt you have read the whole thing, or that if you did you comprehended everything that you read.

So, how are you typing this, if you don't have arms? Or reading this if you don't have eyes? Since you're taking the Bible literally.

Okay, as far as the Creation story goes, we can believe in it and that's perfectly fine, and shows a lot of faith even.. All we're saying is that, though there are necessary truths that lie within the [i]meaning[/i] of the story, we don't have to believe in its [i]literal[/i] appearance in order to be good Christians.
[/quote]

I think it is important to believe in the whole of the scriptures...as for literally...who then is to pick and choose what to take as literal and not to take as literal? And how does one go about choosing?

As for me not reading the thread correctly or not understanding it correctly...I think you have not read this whole thread yourself...there is much doubt and questioning whether Adam and Eve were an actual couple.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Louie' timestamp='1331050398' post='2396883']
I think it is important to believe in the whole of the scriptures...as for literally...who then is to pick and choose what to take as literal and not to take as literal? And how does one go about choosing?
[/quote]
So in other words, Jesus meant this forreal?
Matt. 26:26 "[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."[/size][/font][/color]

Or is that the one exception? How do you explain that one away?

[Louie]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1330787159' post='2395655']


Of course there was a first man whose soul was from God , or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Ans since we are Catholic of course we believe Jesus existed. We also believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures because the CHURCH says they are the Word of God. However, something does not have to be literally true to BE true. When the psalmist says the arm of God he doesn't mean the literal arm of God, he is talking about the power of God in action. If we tell someone "you are the wind beneath my wings" it doesn't mean I am a bird.
[/quote]

This is where you are mistaken...the church doesn't say what the truth of the bible is...the bible says what the truth of the church is...we know what the church is to be and what a Christian is to be by reading the bible...we know how we are to be by reading the scriptures...not by what the church tells us.

[Louie]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1330801712' post='2395763']

The problem with a literal version is that if we are going to destroy parts of our body to prevent sinning then we should commit suicide to prevent it altogether. But then it is a sin to destroy what God has created. If God wanted the Bible to be as simplistic as you seem to want to interpret it, then it should be very clear and concise, which it's not. How do you explain contradictions? In adultery we are taught that if we lust, it is the same as committing. Making it impossible to commit a particular sin is not the same as our denying a sin. Jesus was using a literary tool to enforce the seriousness of sin.

I'm tearing my hair out with frustration!
[/quote]

Are you saying there are contradictions...name some...things are very clear and concise...human reasoning complicates it...we are to be simple as the bible tells us to be...as a child...who doesn't have difficulties understanding the simplicity of the gospel.