Any young earth creationists out there?

[buffalo]

Well, I think I’m happy with that, as far as it goes. If you think that the diversity of life developed by micro-evolution and natural adaptation from a few dozen original kinds, then your definition of micro-evolution and adaptation coincides almost exactly with my definition of ‘evolution’, which is splendid.

It always has and I am surprised you just realized it after all my posts. The issue is not micro-evolution it is macro-evolution, in other words molecules to man evolution.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Not a problem. Your micro-evolution seems to be the same as my macro-evolution, so I’m happy with that.

 

[Richca]

Hence my request to @Richca: if ya’ll are claiming that the prohibition against brother-sister marriage is merely an ecclesiastical impediment of law, then please demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise, as we see in canon law, it is never able to be dispensed (and therefore, not merely an ecclesiastical impediment).

Sorry… let me be more precise: please provide magisterial teaching that incest between brothers and sisters was ever ok. Thanks!

I already have a number of times from the teaching of the Church and the Bible, God’s word. On your end, you have not provided either from the teaching of the Church or the Bible that marriage between sisters-brothers was never okay or that it is against the first precepts of the natural law concerning consanquinity.
In fact an attempt to do so is going to logically follow into a host of contradictions against the catholic faith and reason or common sense. To mention just two: (1) contradiction against the unity of the human race taught in the Bible and in the Church. (2) Propagation of the human race through bestiality, an intrinsically evil act, a mortal sin: this is absurd.

Canon law is ecclesiastcal law and though some canon laws may be based directly on revealed Divine Law or the natural law with additions made, it is obvious many of them can be dispensed, replaced, additions made, etc. at the discretion of the Church. The canon laws regarding the lines of consanquinity or affinity are not unchangable except in certain respects which I have already indicated in prior posts as well as reasons why various lines the Church would not want to change. Secondly, prior to the establishment of the Church by Christ 2000 years ago, no one was bound to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church pertaining to consanquinity. The ancient Israelites were bound to the prescriptions of the Old Law and the gentiles to the natural law. Under the Old Law, the revealed Divine Law, Moses made additions to the natural law concerning consanquinity ,which forbids parent/child marriage or carnal union, for various reasons I’ve already mentioned in prior posts. The New Law of Christ has superceded the Old Law so many of the prescriptions contained in the Old Law we now no longer follow such as the various animal sacrifices, what we can eat or not eat, etc., and I believe the Church does not follow strictly the impediments for lawful marriages that are in the Old Law - one could obviously look into this.

God can make additions to what the natural law prescribes and even change them as we see in the case of the Old Law and the New Law. For example, the natural law prescribes that we should worship God and offer sacrifice to him as our God and creator, for example, consider the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Under the Old Law, God laid down specifically the kinds of sacrifices the Israelites were to do and how to do them. Under the New Law of Christ, we have the one sacrifice of Christ in the Mass.

 

[Richca]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

This is rather elementary.
(1) eggs only come from mature or adult chickens.
(2) eggs need to be kept at a medium temperature, not to hot or not to cold, which is why the mother chicken hovers over them or the eggs won’t hatch.
(3) Once hatched, the baby chicks need the mother to feed them and protect them from predators or they won’t survive.

Conclusion: the chicken came first. Accordingly, in the same way that God created and formed immediately of dust from the ground/earth/soil the first man, Adam (Gen. 2:7), in adult age, and than Eve his wife in adult age from the rib or side of Adam:
so did God create and form immediately from out of the ground (Gen. 2:19) - (or water for the marine animals, the birds are from the water in Genesis 1 but the ground in Genesis 2) - the various species or kinds of animals as already mature specimens except that the females were made in the same way as the males unlike Eve from Adam.

I believe the same goes for the various plant species and trees for seeds come from the mature plant and Genesis 1: 11 says:
‘And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so.’

And Genesis 2: 8-9 says:
’ And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’

This indicates that God planted the garden with the various trees already mature.

At the same time, it is not unreasonable to think that God may have created and formed seeds from earth of various plant species and planted them in the earth from which they sprouted according to the natural processes of nature. The same thing could be said for various animal species that lay eggs but which do not require the parents at all to care for them such as I believe salmon. These sorts of cases God could have done either way and even some one way and some the other, i.e., either from created seed or egg or a created mature speciman of the species. However, Genesis 1-2 appears to favor the creation of the mature plant or animal even in these cases.

From what I can see, the dilemma of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is unexplainable according to Darwinian evolutionism.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Belief in God, the Bible or God’s word, Jesus the Word of God, the teaching of the Church, creationism, requires faith and ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is a gift from God and one of the theological virtues which along with charity and hope are the highest virtues as God is the direct object of these virtues ‘So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love’ (1 Cor. 13:13).

Jesus in the gospels talks about faith alot. Some of the miracles he performed for certain people was because those people had great faith in him ‘oh woman, great is your faith,’ - ‘do you believe I can do this?’ Sometimes he didn’t perform miracles because of the lack of faith in him as when he went down to Capernaum. Jesus generally demanded faith in him if various people asked him for help in various situations.

’ And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and kneeling before him said, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. 16 And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him.” 17 And Jesus answered, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly. 19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?”

20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from hence to yonder place,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you" (Matt. 17: 14-21).

‘The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” 6 And the Lord said, “If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this sycamore tree, ‘Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.’ (Luke 17: 5).

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Yes Lord, increase our faith! For we can and ought to grow in this virtue. As the masters of the spiritual life say, we either advance or slide backwards in our spiritual life of grace which is here on earth the seed as it were of eternal life. One of the great masters of the spiritual life is the great mystic St Teresa of Avila. I recall reading from one of her works where she writes concerning the catholic faith, that the more something seemed unbelievable the more did she believe it. This coming from a woman who had a great many and variety of mystical experiences of God that most of us will probably not experience in this life.

St John of the Cross, another great master of the spiritual life and collaborator with St Teresa in the foundation of the Discalced Carmelites religious order and who also had extraordinary mystical graces and experiences of God, also talks a lot about the virtue of faith in his writings. In fact, the doctrine in his writings are permeated throughout about advancement in the spiritual life and towards its goal, i.e, union with God, through the purification and perfect exercise of the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

I believe in creationism so for me belief in creationism is exercising the theological virtue and gift of faith.

One dark night,
fired with love’s urgent longings
-ah, the sheer grace!-
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.

In darkness, and secure,
by the secret ladder, disguised,
-ah, the sheer grace!-
in darkness and concealment,
my house being now all stilled.

On that glad night
in secret, for no one saw me,
nor did I look at anything
with no other light or guide
than the One that burned in my heart.

This guided me
more surely than the light of noon
to where he was awaiting me
-him I knew so well-
there in a place where no one appeared. (St John of the Cross, first four stanzas of poem)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I believe in creationism so for me belief in creationism is exercising the theological virtue and gift of faith.

Splendid. I hope nobody attacks you for your faith. I hope nobody attacks me for mine. In spite of some attempts to demonstrate the contrary, we evolutionists are generous and kind and sympathetic to other beliefs.

We are, however, ruthless and implacable towards those who distort evidence in order to bolster their faith, feeble though it must be to require such dishonest support.

I am glad that you are not one of them.

 

[Glark]

Did I say I was guided by the Holy Spirit, or merely suggest I might be?

The Catholic Church teaches that the faithful may reject evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. What’s “Protestant” about that?

 

[Glark]

Not a problem. Your micro-evolution seems to be the same as my macro-evolution, so I’m happy with that.

Your claim is specious and unscientific, as it has no basis in reality. Micro’ is observable and repeatable - indisputable fact, in other words. In stark contrast, your macro’ has never been observed and is nothing more than a hypothesis. There is not a scrap of empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that micro’ leads to macro’. All you have is a belief. Please be advised that science is not built on mere beliefs.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Your claim is specious and unscientific, as it has no basis in reality.

What are you talking about? I was making no claim. Buffalo thinks that all current living things are micro-evolutions from a few dozen originals, based on his acceptance of the Book of Jubilees. I also think that all current living things are evolutions from a few dozen originals (at least from about five hundred million years ago). To that extent, it seems that buffalo’s ‘micro-evolution’ and my ‘evolution’ are words that describe the same process, and I don’t want to quibble about about words. So I agree with buffalo. What’s wrong with that?

Now go back over the last few interchanges between myself and buffalo and tell us where you disagree, there’s a good fellow.

 

[Gorgias]

I already have a number of times from the teaching of the Church and the Bible, God’s word. On your end, you have not provided either from the teaching of the Church or the Bible that marriage between sisters-brothers was never okay or that it is against the first precepts of the natural law concerning consanquinity.

Seriously? sigh
CCC 1958:

The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history

CCC 2388:

Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them. … Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

CIC 1078:

§1. The local ordinary can dispense his own subjects residing anywhere and all actually present in his own territory from all impediments of ecclesiastical law except those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.

§3. A dispensation is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

CIC 1091:

§1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

From the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by Beal, Coriden, and Green (not a magisterial source, but a standard reference):

consanguinity in any degree of the direct line is a divine law impediment and that consanguinity in the third and fourth degrees of the collateral line is an ecclesiastical law impediment.

So, let’s put it all together:

• the natural law is immutable
• incest “marks a regression toward animality”
• a bishop has the ability to dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law… but cannot dispense for a brother-sister marriage
• once we’ve reached the third or fourth degree in the collateral line (i.e., first cousins or uncle/niece or aunt/nephew), we’re now in the territory of merely ecclesiastical law

Add these up, and what do you get? Brother/sister marriage is a violation of the immutable divine law.

So, please: don’t say I haven’t made my case. You don’t like it, but there it is.

(2) Propagation of the human race through bestiality, an intrinsically evil act, a mortal sin: this is absurd.

Now it’s your turn: do you have a magisterial source that makes this claim? Otherwise, my CCC and CIC citations trump your personal assertion.

 

[Gorgias]

Richca:

Canon law is ecclesiastcal law and though some canon laws may be based directly on revealed Divine Law or the natural law with additions made, it is obvious many of them can be dispensed

Not those dealing with divine law.

The canon laws regarding the lines of consanquinity or affinity are not unchangable except in certain respects

… except in cases in which the canons mention a matter of divine law.

prior to the establishment of the Church by Christ 2000 years ago, no one was bound to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church pertaining to consanquinity.

This is getting tiresome: yes, you’re correct. However, I’m pointing to a matter of divine law, not merely ecclesiastical law. C’mon… really? How many times do I have to repeat it before you stop attempting to misconstrue what I’m saying?

I believe the Church does not follow strictly the impediments for lawful marriages that are in the Old Law - one could obviously look into this.

Irrelevant.

God can make additions to what the natural law prescribes and even change them

No. If it’s divine natural law, it is immutable (cf CCC 1958).

 

[twf]

Implying that the Popes and others are in error while your position alone conforms to orthodoxy… if that wasn’t your intent, I apologize.

 

[Richca]

No. If it’s divine natural law, it is immutable (cf CCC 1958).

Thank you for the time in responding and attempting to make your case. But none of the arguments you present either from the CCC or the CIC demonstrates that brother/sister marriages are essentially against the natural law as none of the quotations you cite explicitly make such a claim. In the beginnings of the human race and its propagation, human nature demanded brother/sister marriages for the propagation of the race so a claim that brother/sister marriages especially in the beginnings of the human race are essentially against the natural law when human nature itself demanded it, obviously doesn’t make any sense.

Now, the Church teaches and has always taught from divine revelation, i.e., from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the common origin or unity of the human race derived from one first created man, Adam, from whom Eve, the first woman, was made from and from these two the whole human race descended (cf. CCC - 359-361 and corresponding references). All the various truths of the catholic faith are all linked together. Accordingly, what you are essentially arguing against is this teaching of the faith, namely, the unity of the human race. I, on the other hand, am not but defending it. You ought to be able to perceive how your view of the relationship between brother/sister marriages and the natural law is contradictory to the unity of the human race. Whether or not you accept this teaching of the Church derived from divine revelation is your business but you cannot hold at one and the same time the unity of the human race as taught by the Church and your view of the natural law as it pertains to brother/sister marriages.

All the points you bring up in your latest response in two posts I have already touched upon and attempted to explain in some fashion according to the teaching of the Church and various sources such as St Thomas Aquinas.

There are various kinds of law, namely, eternal law, natural law, human law, revealed Divine Law in which there are two kinds - Old Law and New Law, and ecclesiastical law. The distinction and integration of these various kinds of law the CCC touches upon but for a more thorough understanding I would recommend the writings of St Thomas Aquinas. As for the question under discussion here, see ST, Supplement, Q. 54, art. 3 which Aquinas sums up in the following paragraph:

‘Accordingly it is clear from what has been said that consanguinity is by natural law an impediment to marriage in regard to certain persons [parent/child], by Divine law in respect of some, and by human law in respect of others.’

 

[Richca]

(continued)

In the ST, Pt. II-II, Q.154, art. 9, reply to obj. 3, Aquinas says essentially the same thing when discussing incest which is a species of lust:

‘There is something essentially unbecoming and contrary to natural reason in sexual intercourse between persons related by blood, for instance between parents and children who are directly and immediately related to one another, since children naturally owe their parents honor…There is not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and human or Divine law: because, as stated above (Article 2), sexual intercourse, being directed to the common good, is subject to law. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), whereas the union of brothers and sisters goes back to olden times, it became all the more worthy of condemnation when religion forbade it.’

Incidentally, under the same question in article 11, he discusses the unnatural vice or the sin against nature, namely, uncleanness (masturbation), sodomy, bestiality. In article 12, he places the unnatural vice as the greatest sin among the species of lust in the following order from greatest to least: bestiality, sodomy, uncleanness.

Fundamentally, by adopting the view you are proposing which is that brother/sister marriages are essentially contrary to some immutable natural law, you have placed yourself between a rock and a hard place so to speak. Your other proposal for the propagation of the human race involves bestiality. So either way you look at this in your view, namely, whether sister/brother marriages or bestialty (assuming God would indeed infuse a human soul into some beast upon mating) we have God’s plan for the propagation of the human race involving sin or that which is against nature and the presumed natural law. This is absurd.

 

[Gorgias]

none of the arguments you present either from the CCC or the CIC demonstrates that brother/sister marriages are essentially against the natural law as none of the quotations you cite explicitly make such a claim. In the beginnings of the human race and its propagation, human nature demanded brother/sister marriages for the propagation of the race so a claim that brother/sister marriages especially in the beginnings of the human race are essentially against the natural law when human nature itself demanded it, obviously doesn’t make any sense.

OK, so… you realize that you keep making your claims – regarding brother/sister marriage in the beginning, and about bestiality – and you haven’t provided any magisterial warrant for your assertions. So, pot… kettle?

none of the quotations you cite explicitly make such a claim.

Right. It’s called “a logical argument”. It has premises and it has a conclusion.

You ought to be able to perceive how your view of the relationship between brother/sister marriages and the natural law is contradictory to the unity of the human race.

Maybe this would be a valuable tack to take. Tell me, then: please lay out your case for what you believe “the unity of the human race” means, and why it’s salient in this discussion, and why brother-sister sexual activity – which is condemned everywhere and by everyone – doesn’t harm your notion of “the unity of the human race.”

All the points you bring up in your latest response in two posts I have already touched upon and attempted to explain in some fashion according to the teaching of the Church and various sources such as St Thomas Aquinas.

And I’ve rebutted them and shown inconsistencies – especially in the case of the claims you’re making from Aquinas.

As for the question under discussion here, see ST, Supplement, Q. 54, art. 3 which Aquinas sums up in the following paragraph:

‘Accordingly it is clear from what has been said that consanguinity is by natural law an impediment to marriage in regard to certain persons [parent/child], by Divine law in respect of some, and by human law in respect of others.’

Look… I get it that there are various sources of law. Your quote only affirms my point: brother-sister marriage is precisely one of the impediments that Aquinas calls “by Divine law”!

 

[Gorgias]

There is not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and human or Divine law

Again, Aquinas is calling some of these relations “against Divine law”. I’m just pointing out to you that brother-sister incest is one of these!

So either way you look at this in your view, namely, whether sister/brother marriages or bestialty (assuming God would indeed infuse a human soul into some beast upon mating) we have God’s plan for the propagation of the human race involving sin or that which is against nature and the presumed natural law. This is absurd.

And yet, you continue to refuse to substantiate your claim, upthread, that bestiality is an “intrinsic evil.” I’m still waiting to see that magisterial statement.

 

[Glark]

I’m not claiming ‘extinction’. I’m claiming natural death. And their descendants, bearing children with the descendants of our first true human parents, themselves were ensouled.

So true humans mated with a soulless humans and the offspring were true humans? This is a bit like claiming that if a human mated with a chimp, the offspring will possess a human soul. This is speculation. Your hypothesis for the disappearance of the race of Adam’s soulless ancestors is not based on Scripture or science, but purely on imagination. It’s a weak argument because it’s built on fantasy.

And I must say that the idea of a “true” human mating with a “human” without a soul is worse than absurd - it’s downright sick. In effect, you’re saying some true humans were the result of an act of bestiality. These ideas are the perverse and evil fruit of the demonic tree of evolution. The Church Fathers would vomit in their graves if they knew modern Catholics actually believe such insane and sacrilegious stories.

 

[Glark]

Unfortunately, my “millions of years” hyperbole gave you an excuse to avoid my question. The alleged “soulless humans” that Adams descended from had the same brain as he, and would have existed in that state of cerebral development for perhaps a hundred thousand years (since evolution moves so slowly). So what caused this highly-intelligent and hitherto-successful race of soulless humans to disappear after Adam came along? Theistic evolutionists seem to have trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to this question.

And why is there no mention of Adam parents in Scripture? My guess is, there is no mention of them because they never existed, and evolution is a fairy tale for “scientifically-enlightened” grown-ups.

Furthermore, it seems to me Genesis 2:7 rules out the possibility that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature. Voila: Adam was “formed” before he received life. If Adam was “formed” from a living creature - ie, if he was the offspring of a living creature - he would already have life, so there would have been no need for God to breath into him “the breath of life”. But since God did breath into him “the breath of life”, Adam must have been “formed” from inanimate matter.

 

[edwest211]

The last paragraph is compatible with scripture.