Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: + + + +
→Evolution: the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion the div
::::Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
::::Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
::::What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ''ex nihilo''... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ''ex nihilo''... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution.
:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)