G
Glark
Guest
Could this be part of the "‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” - which Jesus spoke of as a sign of His Second Coming (Matt 24:15-16)?
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
“He (St. Augustine) later confessed … (that) shortly after his conversion, he had offered figurative explanations for passages in Genesis, which ‘after more diligent reflection and consideration’, he realised were meant to be understood literally.”
… from Did Woman Evolve form the Beasts? A Defense of Traditional Carholic Doctrine: Part 1, by Brian W. Harrison, Associate Professor of Theology, Pontifical Carholic University of Puerto Rico, published in Living Tradition, January 2002.
… from Did Woman Evolve form the Beasts? A Defense of Traditional Carholic Doctrine: Part 1, by Brian W. Harrison, Associate Professor of Theology, Pontifical Carholic University of Puerto Rico, published in Living Tradition, January 2002.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Nah, too unscientific. Science trumps Revelation.
G
Glark
Guest
Please do no use this word again. I’ve never seen it before and it scares me.
G
Glark
Guest
Yet the Church’s Loony Left are still calling for women priests. This is because feminism is a sacred cow to the great false god of equality.
G
Glark
Guest
No wonder some Cathlic believe we are living in the time of The Great Apostasy (2Thess2).
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well… that sure explains your aversion to new ideas, like figurative interpretation!
Because Catholics think they know better than their popes? I agree.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You know what’s fun about proof-texting? Your interlocutors can find the same documents on the internet that you can find, and when they do, they can demonstrate that you’re using quotations out of context and not in good faith. The context of the quote you’ve provided isn’t about the creation epic and Genesis 1; it’s about Eve and Genesis 2. Here’s what it says, when you don’t chop it up and misrepresent it:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Well according to some private revelations I read, the interpretation of that is …bad Catholic priest.buffalo:
Could this be part of the "‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” - which Jesus spoke of as a sign of His Second Coming (Matt 24:15-16)?
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, he is quite wrong that the Popes had no problem with molecules to man evolution.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Your remarks are entirely relevant. I think you are correct that “we are required by certain teachings to elevate faith over science,” and that I do not adhere to this requirement. Specifically, I do not believe that humankind, however is it defined, descends entirely and exclusively from two individuals, who when then lived were the only examples of humankind on earth. I do not “make an exception for Adam and Eve as direct creation as adults.”
Naughty me. However, if hauled before the inquisition, I will plead my case, in terms of DNA, fossils, the theology of God the Father and Biblical symbology, and you know what? I will be exonerated. The postulates of Humani Generis will be admitted to be of their time, and no longer entirely relevant in the context of modern revelation. Perhaps a new encyclical will be written, explaining the doctrine of souls and original sin in a way that can include the gradual evolution of humankind from non-humankind. The groundwork for this has already been done by much more eminent theologians than I, and only awaits incorporation into some official document.
G
Glark
Guest
Well said, amigo.
G
Glark
Guest
That’s not true. I accept that the Bible contains figurative language. For example, the book of Revelation is loaded with it. The Genesis account of creation may contain figurative language.
Pope Honorius 1 was condemned as a heretic.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I’m afraid it could mean much worse than that. Nevertheless, there is no need to fear, as the Lord promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail against” His Church.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think that this (and I have deliberately excluded the points in ellipsis) is also a possibilty. However, I think that theistic evolutionists think that God not only set it in motion, but also keeps it going. The laws of physics may describe all sorts of possible changes, exactly as they were set up in the beginning, but they predict; they do not enforce. Creating the Big Bang was trivial compared to the second by second recreation of the entire universe in such a way that it can be so accurately described in all its apparent dynamism.
You can’t mean that. God is not constrained by necessity. God did it for fun!
Not to us evolutionists. There is a joyous grandeur in evolution that is wholly lacking in six-day creationism.
All times are twinkling of eyes to God. He does not have to watch the whole reel to reach the climax. The entire film is always before him, instantly accessible. Our own comprehension of the passage of various times is our constraint, not his.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, here’s where you and I differ, then.
But, let me ask you: since Humani generis – and the teachings of the Church – are theological teachings, not scientific ones, then how would you say that they define ‘human’?
And, as a follow up, is that definition one that science can discern empirically?
If so, then your assertions are quite right. However, if not, then I think that your take doesn’t hold up.
So… in a theological context, how do you define ‘human’?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I don’t. I left the definition of human (more specifically humankind) open. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I’m not a theologian. Perhaps somebody else could help here? (I have to say I have a sneaking feeling that theologically a human is axiomatic with no real definition at all. A human is a human.)
It is quite possible that, had we been able to observe the evolution of humans in detail over several million years, there would never have been a point at which we could say “this one’s human, but its mother isn’t”, so that it would have been impossible then to discern the difference between a human and a non-human by any empirical standard whatever. Nowadays, with the extinction of all the intervening species, it is possible to distinguish a human from its nearest non-human relative very easily. That, of course, is the premise upon which Genesis was written.
G
Glark
Guest
I’m with you, brother! Knowing that my ancestors were mankeys puts a smile on my dial every day of the week. Conversely, six-day creationists are all so morose! Poor sods.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
In a Christian theological context, a ‘human’ is a body/soul composite.
This grounds my entire argument: if, in a theological sense, we’re talking about the “first humans”, we’re talking about the first hominins with souls. Science can talk about hominids and hominins all they want – but they are simply not able to talk about souls. So, science can talk about physical characteristics, and call this set “simian” and that set “human”, but we’re using the terms in two distinctly different ways.
Therefore, theology can talk about two first truly human parents, without running afoul of science’s observation of population densities. And therefore, any case that you would make – along the lines of what you wrote here – is merely a scientific discourse, but does not touch on the salient issues from a theological perspective. Therefore, you would not be able to make the case that you think you would be able to make…
B
buffalo
Guest
Science claims polygenism, Catholicism forbids it.
- Status