Conference on Evolution

[mpartyka]

Lots of stuff in the Old Testament isn’t supported by science, evidence. That doesn’t detract from the significance of the stories at all. Faith shouldn’t hinge on science, just on faith and meaning.

Here’s the issue in a nutshell.

Every day, every second, decisions are being made by people concerning how they themselves ought to behave and how society as a whole ought to behave.

Do you want those decisions to be based upon reality or fantasy?

Think about all the millions of people who come forward in democratic nations to cast their votes – votes that potentially affect your life. Do you want those people to base their decisions on reality or fantasy?

I would argue that any rational person would answer, “Reality.”

Take, for example, heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. Let’s say that you’re about to be fired off in a rocket to the moon, and you can choose between two engineers who can plot your safest course. One is a geocentrist, and the other is a heliocentrist. Which engineer would you choose as your navigator? Upon which person’s views would you literally stake your life?

–Mike

 

[edwest2]

Here’s the issue in a nutshell.

Every day, every second, decisions are being made by people concerning how they themselves ought to behave and how society as a whole ought to behave.

Do you want those decisions to be based upon reality or fantasy?

Think about all the millions of people who come forward in democratic nations to cast their votes – votes that potentially affect your life. Do you want those people to base their decisions on reality or fantasy?

I would argue that any rational person would answer, “Reality.”

Take, for example, heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. Let’s say that you’re about to be fired off in a rocket to the moon, and you can choose between two engineers who can plot your safest course. One is a geocentrist, and the other is a heliocentrist. Which engineer would you choose as your navigator? Upon which person’s views would you literally stake your life?

–Mike

Atheists have taken the word reality as their own, along with word the rational. The Catholic Church has consistently and rationally guided its followers. This whole campaign here is about changing “opinion” so that when Catholics go to the voting booth the desired results can be achieved.

You know what’s irrational? A human being called an embryologist. This man knows a human embryo is a human being. Not too dificult to prove. But a political special interest group says, No, it’s not. Who’s not being rational? And the people cutting up embryonic human life - are they rational? Self-justified in their own minds?

It can be scientifically proven that everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

This is all part of what I call The Bible Explanation Industry. Those who worship the human mind under the label science want two realities. And a false separation. Adam and Eve were two individuals? Nope. No evidence. This contradicts the Bible and denies real knowledge about our first parents.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible should be taken literally. I assume that you know that.

If this continues then the Bible becomes a book of good stories to be taken only on faith. This is a false separation that is in no way endorsed by the Church.

The Bible is a book of good stories. The stories don’t have to be literally factual to be true.

To make science the source of all truth. Once again, do not be deceived. Evidence can be created and ‘truth’ can be manipulated. The goal: atheism.

Peace,
Ed

The goal isn’t necessarily atheism, regardless of your charges. The goal most likely is truth. That doesn’t eliminate faith at all, but it changes religious beliefs as science advances. If you must cling to beliefs that are controverted by science then you will fall behind truth. That’s OK, but you also must give up all claims to contemporary knowledge. The Church doesn’t claim to be the source of scientific knowledge, but maybe you claim that for the Church, and for yourself, and I doubt that.

 

[buffalo]

What about no evidence of the Exodus? Or the slaughter of the innocents? Lots of stuff in the Old Testament isn’t supported by science, evidence. That doesn’t detract from the significance of the stories at all. Faith shouldn’t hinge on science, just on faith and meaning.

The Exodus? They were looking in the wrong place. You really need to check out the findings.

Archeology - the more they look the more they find the OT to be true and accurate.

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible should be taken literally. I assume that you know that.

The Bible is a book of good stories. The stories don’t have to be literally factual to be true.

The goal isn’t necessarily atheism, regardless of your charges. The goal most likely is truth. That doesn’t eliminate faith at all, but it changes religious beliefs as science advances. If you must cling to beliefs that are controverted by science then you will fall behind truth. That’s OK, but you also must give up all claims to contemporary knowledge. The Church doesn’t claim to be the source of scientific knowledge, but maybe you claim that for the Church, and for yourself, and I doubt that.

The Deposit of Faith is protected and defended by the Church. The Holy Spirit guarantees the Deposit true. That means that understanding can grow organically but will not reverse for truth is forever. Truths do not change over time.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible should be taken literally. I assume that you know that.

The Bible is a book of good stories. The stories don’t have to be literally factual to be true.

The goal isn’t necessarily atheism, regardless of your charges. The goal most likely is truth. That doesn’t eliminate faith at all, but it changes religious beliefs as science advances. If you must cling to beliefs that are controverted by science then you will fall behind truth. That’s OK, but you also must give up all claims to contemporary knowledge. The Church doesn’t claim to be the source of scientific knowledge, but maybe you claim that for the Church, and for yourself, and I doubt that.

Oh no? And why are you claiming something about the Church related to science?

“Here again, the Church is saying quite a lot. It is saying, in effect, that no matter what current scientists think, no matter how well established their theories of human origins seem to be, that in the end, when all the evidence is finally in, science will not contradict the fact that human beings have a single set of parents. Note, I am not saying that science will at last prove that Adam and Eve existed. The point is much more startling. I am saying that, try as it might, wander where it will, science will find that all its attempts to investigate the possibility of human polygenism ultimately fruitless, and all its attempts to investigate the possibility of monogenism will prove wonderfully fruitful. The Church is declaring that faith cannot be contradicted because the God of revelation is the Creator God.”

Truth cannot contradict truth, but it must flow in both directions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

The Bible is a book of good stories. The stories don’t have to be literally factual to be true.

Pardon me. – Your comment: “The Bible is a book of good stories” – You must be looking at the Reader’s Digest version. The Bible I am holding consists of 73 books and there are a lot of literal facts in spite of evolutionary theories.

 

[Namesake]

Pardon me. – Your comment: “The Bible is a book of good stories” – You must be looking at the Reader’s Digest version. The Bible I am holding consists of 73 books and there are a lot of literal facts in spite of evolutionary theories.

I wasn’t minimizing the Bible. It’s even been called “the good book”. And I think it is accurate to say that it’s a book of stories, which include some literal facts.

Sorry I wasn’t more clear.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ask StAnastasia who attended the conference. Website is www.evolution-rome2009.net

The conference director on the last day reminded the presenters that their edited papers were due by the end of March. I don’t know what the editorial turnaround time is before publication. I would suspect an autumn publication date.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I know it’s off topic, but FWIW, I have to offer some sympathy for StAnastasia. If God had asked me to do what He asked Abraham to do, I would have failed that test miserably. I WOULD HAVE MISERABLY FAILED.
That’s why God called Abraham and not me. It’s easy to say that we would do something if asked by God to do it. But until we’re actually in that situation and truly tested, we really can’t say we would do it. We’re going on faith.

With all due respect, Camron, if I burned as a holocaust either my son – or a ram caught by its horns in my front yard – and tried explain to the police and fire officials that “God had put me to the test,” they would put me away either in prison or in a mental institution. Who could blame them?

 

[StAnastasia]

From what I got of this conference is the Church wanted to “listen” to what mainstream science had to say. I think it will take some time to boil this down.

No, it was a dialogue. The Church both listened and spoke, and it was both scientists and theologians who were doing the listening and the speaking.

 

[mpartyka]

With all due respect, Camron, if I burned as a holocaust either my son – or a ram caught by its horns in my front yard – and tried explain to the police and fire officials that “God had put me to the test,” they would put me away either in prison or in a mental institution. Who could blame them?

Okay, so in THIS day and age, such things as sacrificing animals on a flaming altar are considered weird. Not so in Abraham’s day and age.

Wait…what was your point again?

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Okay, so in THIS day and age, such things as sacrificing animals on a flaming altar are considered weird. Not so in Abraham’s day and age. it…what was your point again?–Mike

My point was that listening to voices telling me to offer my son as a holocaust would make me a nut case. And holocausts are also against the regulations of our local air resources board, especially on spare-the-air days.

 

[mpartyka]

My point was that listening to voices telling me to offer my son as a holocaust would make me a nut case. And holocausts are also against the regulations of our local air resources board, especially on spare-the-air days.

Okay. But you do accept that Abraham heard and obeyed God’s voice, correct? And that his doing so was to his credit?

–Mike

 

[Namesake]

Okay. But you do accept that Abraham heard and obeyed God’s voice, correct? And that his doing so was to his credit?

–Mike

What sort of god is this that either requires such ridiculous obescience, or tests his followers with such horrible tasks?

 

[rossum]

What sort of god is this that either requires such ridiculous obescience, or tests his followers with such horrible tasks?

The kind of God who is not omniscient, and who would need to set such a test rather than know what Abraham was thinking without having to test at all.

rossum

 

[mpartyka]

What sort of god is this that either requires such ridiculous obescience, or tests his followers with such horrible tasks?

I think the idea is, God wanted to see how far humanity would go in response to Him, and since Abraham was willing even to give up his only son, whom he loved, God was therefore willing to give up His only Son for the sake of humanity. Or perhaps God was trying to make Abraham realize just how much it would cost for him to be the father of many nations through Christ. Either way, there’s a sense of reciprocity – “You were willing to go the distance for me, so you can be sure now that I’ll go the distance for you.”

As for whether God knew that Abraham would go through with it, the standard Christian response is, “Yes, He did, but Abraham didn’t know that God knew it.” Hence, Abraham was given the test by God so that the faith, hope, and love that was inside of him could come out, be expressed, and receive God’s blessing. Or, maybe Abraham himself didn’t know until then how sold out for God he was – some people never know who they are until they’re tested.

–Mike

 

[Namesake]

The kind of God who is not omniscient, and who would need to set such a test rather than know what Abraham was thinking without having to test at all.

rossum

The kind of god who doesn’t exist?

 

[StAnastasia]

Okay. But you do accept that Abraham heard and obeyed God’s voice, correct? And that his doing so was to his credit?

–Mike

Yes – in that story, Abraham heard God’s voice and obeyed it. And the author reports that it was to Abraham’s credit. I would not get the same credit – I’d get squad car, a prison cell, and 'Ol Sparky.

 

[mpartyka]

Yes – in that story, Abraham heard God’s voice and obeyed it. And the author reports that it was to Abraham’s credit. I would not get the same credit – I’d get squad car, a prison cell, and 'Ol Sparky.

You recall, though, that Abraham and Isaac went up the mountain alone, don’t you? Abraham didn’t want anyone else around and told none of his servants what he intended to do. Even Isaac was kept in the dark until the time was at hand. So, I think even Abraham knew, “If I try to do this in front of witnesses, they’ll think I’m out of my mind,” and so he chose to leave his servants behind and go up with Isaac alone.

–Mike