234
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: + +
re:→Theistic Evolution
Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User|Rocky|Rocky]]