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 youtube.com
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.
Catholicism DEBUNKED
Other urls found in this thread:
ewtn.com
twitter.com
the pope is a beaner
'nuff said
>inb4 muh mitochondrial eve
The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as maternal lineages become extinct. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, by the definition of Mitochondrial Eve, her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, do not have any descendants today who descend in an unbroken female line of descent.
Pic very related
>Jesus died for the orginal sin
Wew lad.
It's almost like you've never actually read the bible and went off what some guy on r/atheism said? Now isn't that weird? Maybe you want to go back there?
>After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium ("first gospel"): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.
Catechism
...
They don't address the "first man and woman" issue at all. They make reference to Humani Generis, just as OP did, but obviously that view is proven wrong by evolution
...
>genomic imprinting
Catholics confirmed for patrician again
It isn't ''proven'' wrong, the theory just states that humans gradually evolved from other creatures. Until the theory of evolution proves how consciousness and thought, which are immaterial, formed from material ''other beings'', it hasn't proven anything.
>the theory just states that humans gradually evolved from other creatures
Yes, now read the OP on why that isn't compatible with Catholicism
A theory, by definition, doesn't prove anything, since the theory hasn't been proven itself. Personally, unless the conditions I outlined above are met, I don't give a shit about what that particular theory states.
The theory of evolution fails one of the oldest logical shit tests which states that a thing cannot give something to the other thing which it doesn't have itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the claims made in OP, go ask a biology professor at your local university
Sin?
Plenty of issues with evolution. Admitted by Gould himself. Don't make me hold hour hand.
>Plenty of issues with evolution
we wuz flat-eartheners n shieet. why do ameritards have the most backwards-ass people lol
Any problems that relate to claims made in OP?
Lol, Gould said it, not me. Bring an argument next time Germany. Keep being cucked by Ahmed.
Look up what Gould said. I gave you everything you need and you have Google use it.
>doesn't present any argument or claim
>just drops a name
Jesus Christ, learn how to think for yourself
>Ignoring what this man has to say
>thinking for yourself
I am, you aren't. Dumb fuck.
Yeah, but what about what Dawkins had to say? Checkmate!
See how that's not how one discusses?
How exactly is original sin passed down?
Is sin stored in some organ? Was it some reaction that alters our DNA?
Can we make another reaction happen to revert that change?
They say a lot of the same things, Gould just says more because he knows more.
>expecting me to copy and paste everything Gould has to say for you
>cant even into Google search
>I share a board with people like you
Come on dude. Seriously, it's not that fucking hard. I'm not going to hold your hand like you are a baby.
It is stored in the rectums of small boys, the priests have a special tool they use to probe for the sin.
...
Read st Thomas squints.
>a thing cannot give something to the other thing which it doesn't have itself
wut
How does this relate at all to a series of small changes to things that continue until differentiation?
Did a quick read of his stance on Evolution and he believes in Evolution and engaged in making this theory more popular..
what was the discussion about.. ?
*was (i now he's dead, used a wrong tense)
Catholics still lurk Sup Forums?
>cant even into Google search
>Gould
You mean the guy who said that creationism was a load of shit?
The fact that he believed that there were issues with the minutiae of the theory of evolution does not totally discredit the theory. If his beliefs are confirmed then the theory will be amended to be closer to the truth.
Citing sources doesn't make you a handholder, it makes you intellectually honest and subject to criticism, a concept that probably send you scurrying back into your mother's basement.
You want me to read everything he's ever written?
Bump
...
...