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
>inb4 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 related
Free will is a lie, so you're already standing on a faulty premise.
Doesn't this apply to pretty much all of Christianity? All denominations asserting original sin have this fault, and they don't need to accept evolution as doctrine for it to be factually correct.
Yeah, pretty much, unless that sect disagrees with something Pope Pius or the Catechism says that makes it more flexible.
>Catholicism
Good riddance
>debunks one theory by assuming another theory is true
You're fucking retarded.
>deny science to keep Jewish fairy tales
So red pilled!
kek
...
...
Then according to evolution what makes a human, a human and simply not a derivative of another derivative?
Getting lost in the churches word salad? You've already lost the game by playing.
What makes a human a human? Our DNA
>speculation about superstitious babble
>theory
Leaf...
I don't get why you christfaggots always attack evolution. Even if you manage somehow (alternative reality mandela dick shit) disprove evolution, it is not +1 for your "theory". Also who's to say god doesn't work thru evolution and that's his masterplan all along? Fuck your dimwitted brains, at least you have me doubting evolution, cannot believe religious people are same species with me.
OP seems to be drawing conclusions that aren't supported by evolution
I'm not dismissing it, I don't see evolution as disproving Christianity or vica versa. Creationists are another can of worms entirely
Oh boy, Atheist General poster is back.
>According to Catholic doctrine:
Entirely true.
>From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Entirely true.
>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.
This implies that some manner of fixism is intrinsic to Catholic doctrine when it is not. Catholics understand the rational soul of man to be initially given to Adam and to Eve. It says nothing of humanity as a species. While that view is common, it is not doctrinal that it is that way. Hence the Catholic use of "true human" or "true man" rather than "human" or "man". This is also represented in the Adam and Eve story, seeing the references to others.
>If Adam and Eve never
This is accurate.
>The Catechism states...
This is accurate.
>Pope Pius writes:
This is accurate, but it is important to note the use of "true men" here.
This is accurate as well, besides where you imply an incorrect view of Eve in relation to humanity.
So you're saying the children of Adam and Eve committed bestiality? Gross.
All of humanity didn't descend from a single couple though. So you're wrong again.
>tripfag
Leave
Generally so, but the user is reacting precisely against the popularity of Catholicism on Sup Forums. Sup Forums has a large Catholic population that had constant threads over the last year and a half.
There is an assumption of evidence, so no logical failure whatsoever. You're mistaken. The issue OP has is understanding the church's view of things.
Greetings, r/atheism.
Tell us when you're interesting in actual intelligent discourse and not just thinking things that are hard for you to understand are just nonsense.
lolwhat
I have not held that position and explicitly argued against such a claim being the case. Read better.
The user is not attacking evolution. The user is just asking a question about identity under such a view.
No
>I have not held that position and explicitly argued against such a claim being the case. Read better.
I can read just fine.
"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"
"who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all"
>I can read just fine.
And yet you miss this:
>This implies that some manner of fixism is intrinsic to Catholic doctrine when it is not. Catholics understand the rational soul of man to be initially given to Adam and to Eve. It says nothing of humanity as a species. While that view is common, it is not doctrinal that it is that way. Hence the Catholic use of "true human" or "true man" rather than "human" or "man". This is also represented in the Adam and Eve story, seeing the references to others.
Which shows that you're misunderstanding those lines you quote.
>It says nothing of humanity as a species.
Okay, now reconcile your fantasy story with the real world. Where species, evolution, and breeding are real.
I figured you meant that two random humans were chosen to be True Humans(c) with magic souls and you think everyone descended from them (as your catechism and previous pope states)
Maybe try being clear in communication instead of vague.
>taking the Bible literally
fuck off you Protestant cunt
He's quoting the catechism, dumb nigger
Catholicism is Jewish controlled for over 500 years. It is not real Christianity anymore. The Pope wears a Yamaka to show subservience to his Jewish masters.
>Okay, now reconcile your fantasy story with the real world. Where species, evolution, and breeding are real.
Evolutionary processes gave rise to a population of creatures with what we would consider human DNA. In that group there is two with distinct intellectual ability. Full rationality - will with intellect. This aspect is passed down to kin and this pair becomes a common ancestor for all humanity by, at the very latest, 0 A.D.
>I figured you meant that two random humans were chosen to be True Humans(c) with magic souls and you think everyone descended from them (as your catechism and previous pope states)
I would say it's more accurate to say they were born that way rather than became that way. However, this line is not the same as the initial claim of
We have many cases of common ancestors so the only way this comment would make sense is if you're speaking of humanity as a species, which isn't the case and not reflected by Catholic doctrine.
He's done his homework, he's just mistaken on the church's terms. Principally the term "true man".
Don't be quick to judge, man, and read better.
Not OP, genuinely curious about this. So I assume from what I am reading that God picked a couple, gave them a soul, and they gave us all a soul because they are a common ancestor?
>reads the Catechism for five minutes
>convinces himself he's an expert and thus able to criticize the whole religion as he sees fit
>believes he's discovered some big, secret flaw that needs to be 'debunked'
>doesn't stop for a moment to read even a single bit of the latest Catholic literature which thoroughly and repeatedly addresses this issue
You are a special kind of retard, aren't you?
...
A religious doctrine is riddled with contradictions? Wow, really gets my noggin' joggin'!
>We have many cases of common ancestor
No, we don't. Not to any individuals. To other species, yes.
Also, you avoided the bestiality question
Yes, generally, but I'd make a few distinctions:
>People are born with souls, they do not suddenly gain them after their creation.
>it wouldn't be so much "give them a soul" but "give them a rational soul".
All things are created with soul, they simply vary. The view of humanity pre-Adam/Eve being without souls generally speaking would also be against Catholic teaching.
Catholicism understands the soul in a hylomorphic sense, if you wish to research that to grasp how they understand it.
>Not to any individuals
?
There are several cases of MRCA and prior ones. You are bluntly wrong.
>Also, you avoided the bestiality question
I see no reason to address it. Yes, that seems to be the case in the leading theory in interpreting the Catholic doctrine of Adam and Eve with modern doctrine, which is also supported by the story itself arguably. I can't say yes authoritatively, nor cite anyone who can, so we can't know.
I see no reason to discuss it further and the question of bestiality seemed rhetorical.
All men are born with inherited sin which Jesus Christ sacrificed himself on the cross for, so that we could live our lives free without needing to worry about judgement in heaven, as long as we are open and honest about our sins.
>dat pic
>muh questionable analogy
Ayy lamo
>MRCA
the MRCA of a population does not correspond to a population bottleneck, let alone a "first couple". It rather reflects the presence of a single individual with high reproductive success in the past, whose genetic contribution have become pervasive throughout the population over time. E.g. it is estimated that the MRCA of the populations native to Europe, or even much of Eurasia, is medieval, more specifically, due to the Mongol invasions in the 13th century
>Yes, that seems to be the case
So your God went out of his way to create humans via evolution (rather than directly) knowing full well that bestiality was required (which he later sends you to hell for)
What's questionable? Is it impossible for aliens to have their own religions?
...
>the MRCA of a population does not correspond to a population bottleneck, let alone a "first couple". It rather reflects the presence of a single individual with high reproductive success in the past, whose genetic contribution have become pervasive throughout the population over time. E.g. it is estimated that the MRCA of the populations native to Europe, or even much of Eurasia, is medieval, more specifically, due to the Mongol invasions in the 13th century
The "population bottleneck" understanding is you grasping the situation we're speaking about incorrectly. This is terrible as most of the thread is dedicated to explaining what is actually the case and you're involved in such a discussion at times. A population bottleneck is not relevant whatsoever.
And the rest of that text is irrelevant and, at best, supports what I said.
I also see that you're copy-pasting from Wikipedia. I would suggest lurking moar.
>So your God went out of his way to create humans via evolution (rather than directly) knowing full well that bestiality was required (which he later sends you to hell for)
Hence the requirements of mortal sin and growing covenants between God and man that over time shows man God's law in greater and greater detail.
It is a Christian position that past covenants, such as Mosaic Law (Old Testament Law) are not God's Law in full but what the people were ready for at the time and work as preparations for God's law in full, which is Christianity.
I laughed.
>Atheist General user comes with an argument and evidence
>debate
>user's thoroughly condescending
>finish my point
>user disappears
Fucking disappointing. I'm heading out. Goodnight, Anons.
>And the rest of that text is irrelevant and, at best, supports what I said.
So which MRCA for where are you talking about? That's debunked here And your God makes no sense. Why use such a messy, sinful method when he could have just made man? You seriously think he would require you to do evil?
>makes a long ass post
>doesn't even wait two minutes for a reply
>pretends the other poster conceded and that he "won" the discussion
Fucking pathetic. Typical tripfaggot
Oj Adam aside, if you don't think we are all sinners you are deeply bill pilled or young as fuck
Our actions make use sinners, not our fathers. Otherwise, blame whites for slavery and make them pay reparations
>focusing on stupid dogma, "ermagerd we could have avoided this", rather than the fact that God, being all knowing, knew that all this was going to happen before setting the events into motion
God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil. This gets skipped over a lot. He just put this very special tree within walking distance of these humans, and told them not to eat from it. He could have put it anywhere else in the universe. He could have put it across the ocean, or on another planet. He could have not made it at all.
God create Humans, intelligent, inquisitive, curious apes and then told them not to eat from a special tree for some reason, then immediately turns His back. Conveniently, a special snake shows up and tells the woman that they'll have superpowers if they eat from it.
You don't think this was planned out from the beginning?
It's a parable about the human condition. Ever since the very beginning, humanity has been at odds against nature, and ironically our greatest strengths lead directly into our greatest weaknesses. It is our sentience, intelligence, and ability to discern right and wrong that holds us accountable for our actions in ways that other animals can't be.
In other words it's kind of a reboot of the Prometheus myth, along with a short joke about how, since the dawn of Time, women have always been lead astray by smooth talking snakes, and that if you want to influence a man's actions you first influence his wife's, all good to know tidbits when dealing with people.
The details of the creation myth, stolen from the Enuma Elish, aren't important. What's important is how Christian sects interpret it. Catholics interpret it to mean there is literally an Adam and Eve
Not to sound overly conciliatory, but aren't we saying the same thing? Of course interpretation of the detail is an important aspect. Some people choose to ignore the details and focus on the superficial story. That's like believing pigs invented Communism.
>implying sin is an act
I'm aiming for Woden's corpse hall myself.
...