Conference on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gee – I thought the whole point you guys and gals were making is that the Old Testament is to be interpreted literally; at least that’s the argument I’ve been hearing today. If we’ve now switched to a figurative interpretation, then we’re on the same page. Back to the conference on evolution!

StAnastasia
“…you guys and gals…” I know of no one who interprets all of the bible literally. Jesus is not a vine (as in a vegetable).

This whole thing got started with Abraham and Isaac. I believe that God actually did tell Abraham to kill Isaac, and Abraham intended to follow through with it. I do not put restrictions on what God does with his creation. I don’t restrict God to acting as he tells his creatures to act. And I know what I don’t know…which is “a lot about God.”
 
StA - here’s another simple question.

How much don’t you know about God?
 
And I know what I don’t know…which is “a lot about God.”
Incredible. For a person to know what they don’t know is just incredible in the deepest sense of the meaning of that. I can’t even begin to know what I don’t know. How very fortunate you are.
 
Incredible. For a person to know what they don’t know is just incredible in the deepest sense of the meaning of that. I can’t even begin to know what I don’t know. How very fortunate you are.
You are reading too much into my comment, which was directed at how much I know about God. I see that you edited out that part of my comment. Certainly, it’s not the only thing I don’t know about.

Your false indignation reveals something about you, I think.
 
Incredible. For a person to know what they don’t know is just incredible in the deepest sense of the meaning of that. I can’t even begin to know what I don’t know. How very fortunate you are.
Namesake, I suppose I could say that what I don’t know about God is virtually infinite. However, from the infinite that I don’t know I subtract a little bit, while acknowledging that that little is more a matter of belief than of knowledge.

As a Christian there are some basic propositions I believe: (1) God is love; (2) God is at least personal; (3) God is uniquely present in the person of Jesus the Christ; (4) Godself is revealed in three primary manifestations as Creator, Redeemer, and Sancitfier; (5) there is an order to creation; (6) God cares for this evolving creation; (7) on earth humans stand in a special relationship with God; (8) the Church is inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. These and other beliefs are matters of faith, and in faith we are confident enough to call them matters of knowledge.

StAnastasia
 
Exodus 31:15 – “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”

Walmart, Home Depot, Best Buy, Burger King, and the Chevron Station are open and making money on Sunday.
You seem to be saying, “Look what would happen if we tried to implement the Mosaic Law today!” as if that should somehow color our opinion of God’s having implemented the Mosaic Law at the time He actually did, which is, like, 4000 years ago. Today is not 4000 years ago. What people wouldn’t dream of doing today may have seemed reasonable to people back then, and vice versa. Bottom line is, you’re never going to properly appreciate the Mosaic Law unless you consider it in the context of the times (which, ironically, is what you keep telling us to do).

–Mike
 
If the RCC has ever espoused, ex cathedra, the notion that “evolution” did not occur, then infallibity is out the window and the RCC was once in error. The Torah itself provides for evolution. Read Genesis on plant life. And said God…

That’s it, said God. No ‘asah, to make, or bara’, to create. You are looking for intelligent design? There it is. And said God…since he had set the thing up and knew what was coming, and since the earth had the capacity to generate plant life, no need for any ‘asah or bara’ on his part. And it really is that simple. And ancient Jewish sages were teaching the same before our Lord was born. Don’t you think that if the notion of evolution was wrong and that the wrong notion was important to the faith, that the New Testament might have an explicit rejection of the wrong notion? It doesn’t. Which can mean either of two things, (a) the NT agrees with the ancient sages’ opinion and so no need for correction, and/or (b) it doesn’t matter in any event, as the belief, or not, likely won’t change the matter of whether you are a murderer or not, an adulterer or not, and so on and so forth.

Now to round out the discussion, kindly note that we have bara’ for the sea and air creatures. Something new, ie., not plants. But with respect to land animals, it is ‘asah, to make. No bara’ since animals[sea and air] already existed and so the land animals couldn’t be “created”. We are both created and made. Made in the sense that we too are animals, and so biologically speaking, we are but a modification of the existing [the last link in the evolutionary chain]. The creation is the human soul that has the capacity for such things as symbolic expression [this writing and that math you learned in school and still use today]. You can’t have a spiritual conversation without symbolic expression. No other animal species has it, and so it was new to the system, and so bara’, created. The sea and air animals were created, entirely, as their biology isn’t the same as that of plants and the claim is that they also have spirits that plants lack [they, like us, are called nephesh chayyah, or souls living; plants are never called such]. Now back to the land animals, in contrast to sea and air animals, again, 'asah, made, since the animal biology and spirit already existed and so wasn’t new and couldn’t be called, created.

Lastly, re Exodus, it always helps to remember one thing, to wit, and evening was and morning was, for a day one, two, three, four, five, and six, but there is no report in the Torah that evening was and morning was, for a day seven. So it is still the seventh day, and so a sabbath holy to the Lord, each and every day for you and me. And so no surprise that the word from on high is, be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. Sorry, almost forgot, but it otherwise had to be the seventh day, as our God anticipated taking the flesh and pitching his tent among us, and so an unholy day just wouldn’t do. Also, properly understood, this seventh day that is holy to the Lord, it is indeed our day of redemption and that’s why it is holy. Or as Paul so aptly put it, God locked up, as with a key and a lock, all in sin, so that he might have mercy on all.
 
Incredible. For a person to know what they don’t know is just incredible in the deepest sense of the meaning of that. I can’t even begin to know what I don’t know. How very fortunate you are.
The human brain is a complex object. In some cases I know immediately that I do not know something - for example I know that I do not know Abraham Lincoln’s Birthday. I do know the day Oliver Cromwell died[1]. Many of you on the other side of the pond may have that the other way round.

There are some things that we do not know, that we know that we do not know. There are other things that we do not know that we do not even know that we are ignorant of. I do not often quote Donald Rumsfeld, but his “known unknowns” seems to cover the first type while his “unknown unknowns” cover the second.

[1] Byvire Pebzjryy qvrq ba Frcgrzore gur guveq 1658.

rossum
 
(4) Godself is revealed in three primary **manifestations **as Creator, Redeemer, and Sancitfier;
With theology, it’s a good idea to be precise with one’s language in order to avoid publishing heretical formulations.
“The Heresy of Sabellianism – Sabellius seems to have meant “three modes or characters of one person”. The Father is the Monad of whom the Son is a kind of manifestation …”
newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
Sabellius taught that God was indivisible, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three modes or **manifestations **of one divine Person. A Sabellian modalist would say that the One God successively revealed Himself to man throughout time as the Father in Creation; the Son in Redemption; and the Spirit in Sanctification and Regeneration.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius
Sabellianism the modalistic doctrines of Sabelliusrd-century prelate, espe-cially that the Trinity has but one divine essence and that the persons are only varying **manifestations **of God. Also called Modalistic Monarchianism. —Sabellian, n., adj.
faqs.org/ologies-isms/Gra-Hyp/Heresy.html
Sabellians, followers of Sabellius, a 3rd-century Roman churchman who was pronounced a heretic for his views on the doctrine of the Trinity. Sabellius taught that God is one but that he reveals himself in three distinct and successive **manifestations **
encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762509842/sabellians.html
 
The sea and air animals were created, entirely, as their biology isn’t the same as that of plants and the claim is that they also have spirits that plants lack .
Pope Benedict disagrees with you – he says that it is virtually certain that all living things on earth have descensed from a common ancestor.
 
As a Christian there are some basic propositions I believe: (1) God is love; (2) God is at least personal; (3) God is uniquely present in the person of Jesus the Christ; (4) Godself is revealed in three primary manifestations as Creator, Redeemer, and Sancitfier; (5) there is an order to creation; (6) God cares for this evolving creation; (7) on earth humans stand in a special relationship with God; (8) the Church is inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. These and other beliefs are matters of faith, and in faith we are confident enough to call them matters of knowledge.
I’m glad you posted the above. It shows many areas which we can agree upon. “There is an order to creation,” for example. Order implies design (at least for me, but apparently not for you). So we’ll need to disagree on that.

I’m not sure why you included #4 in the above list. Do you make the sign of the cross using those terms, or do you use Father, Son, Holy Spirit?
 
I’m glad you posted the above. It shows many areas which we can agree upon. “There is an order to creation,” for example. Order implies design (at least for me, but apparently not for you). So we’ll need to disagree on that. I’m not sure why you included #4 in the above list. Do you make the sign of the cross using those terms, or do you use Father, Son, Holy Spirit?
Yes, I use the baptismal formula for the sign of the cross.
 
Yes, I use the baptismal formula for the sign of the cross.
And which baptismal formula is that? Some people baptize using the words creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. Or do you use the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top