Creation or Evolution

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower, Reggie is right.

From the CCC #27:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htmCCC #27 [Wanted to show the link name that Reggie hid by giving us a short link.]:

"The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. "

Man alone is called to this communion with God.

Man alone is unique in creation as adopted children of God.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God as children resemble their parents…

Ricmat, no Reggie isn’t always right! As a Roman Catholic, I use the Vatican when quoting from the Catechism:

CHAPTER ONE

MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD

I. The Desire for God

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created [immortal soul] by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The **dignity **of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

Well, I’m a she not a he and God *created *my immortal soul! My body was the result of EVOLUTION.

Let’s look at the following:

 CHAPTER TWO THE HUMAN COMMUNION
 Article 3 SOCIAL JUSTICE
 IN BRIEF

IN BRIEF
1943 Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.
1944 Respect for the human person considers the other “another self.” It presupposes respect for the fundamental rights that flow from the dignity intrinsic of the person.
1945 The equality of men concerns their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it.
1946 The differences among persons belong to God’s plan, who wills that we should need one another. These differences should encourage charity.
1947 The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities.
1948 Solidarity is an eminently Christian virtue. It practices the sharing of spiritual goods even more than material ones.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6R.HTM

And the most important thing about the Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
 PROLOGUE
 VI. Necessary Adaptations
VI. Necessary Adaptations
23 The Catechism emphasizes the exposition of doctrine. It seeks to help deepen understanding of faith. In this way it is oriented towards the maturing of that faith, its putting down roots in personal life, and its shining forth in personal conduct.17
24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:
Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers… Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct.18
Above all - Charity25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:
The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.19

17 Cf. CT 20-22; 25.

18 Roman Catechism, Preface II; cf. ⇒ I Cor 9:22; ⇒ I Pt 2:2

19 Roman Catechism, Preface 10; cf. ⇒ I Cor 13 8.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7.HTM

Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate. We are foolish for even trying to converse with him.

Yep, he is brillant and wins every debate! He likes to debate. Don’t be shy. Remember he is a scientist and knows all about SCIENCE.

 

[reggieM]

I use the Vatican when quoting from the Catechism:

Here’s the Vatican website:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm#I

Catechism of the Catholic Church

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

I will be glad to explain this further to you if you continue to be confused.

 

[wildleafblower]

Reggie, maybe you should tell Ricmat about using the Vatican website since he gave me the incorrect information from a website that wasn’t Roman Catholic as I’ve already noted. The hang-up for some individuals appears to be over “created in the image of God”. What is the image of God? God is love and is reflected in Jesus, the Son of God. We are human beings as was Jesus so we should remember:

Above all - Charity

25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:
The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.19

19 Roman Catechism, Preface 10; cf. ⇒ I Cor 13 8.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7.HTM

 

[edwest2]

Nice attempt at diversion. The false Creation and Evolution debate is about creating division among Catholics. The correct answer, which involves God’s direct involvement in our Creation, needs to be repeated.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

I use the website Talk.origins ~ Read about it here:

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive’s existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
talkorigins.org/
www.talkorigins.org/

I’m a Roman Catholic woman who isn’t a creationist. That is what was taught to me by Roman Catholic priests. I support Talk.origins because they don’t advocate ‘intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences’ and neither does the Church: Can. 279 §1. Even after ordination to the priesthood, clerics are to pursue sacred studies and are to strive after that solid doctrine founded in sacred scripture, handed on by their predecessors, and commonly accepted by the Church, as set out especially in the documents of councils and of the Roman Pontiffs. They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science. (Code of Canon Law, BOOK II. THE PEOPLE OF GOD LIBER II. DE POPULO DEI, PART I. THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL. TITLE III. SACRED MINISTERS OR CLERICS (Cann. 232 - 293), CHAPTER III. THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF CLERICS)

Thank you.

I really love The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[edwest2]

That is false. Catholics are allowed to believe Creation instead of evolution.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Wildleafblower, Reggie is right.

From the CCC #27:

"The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. "

Man alone is called to this communion with God.

Man alone is unique in creation as adopted children of God.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God as children resemble their parents.

Reggie, maybe you should tell Ricmat about using the Vatican website since **he gave me the incorrect information from a website that wasn’t Roman Catholic as I’ve already noted.
**

So, Wildleafblower, exactly what incorrect information did I provide? What about this statement do you disagree with?

**"The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. "

**You quoted exactly the same text in you response from “the Vatican.”
The Catechism is on-line at many locations. **What evidence do you have that the source I provided is not a Roman Catholic website? **

Here is the link to their main page.

scborromeo.org/index2.htm

Yep, he is brillant and wins every debate! He likes to debate. Don’t be shy. Remember he is a scientist and knows all about SCIENCE.

Unless you are claiming that Alec is God, he might be wrong. There are scientists who disagree with his views.

It is strange that a Roman Catholic woman who loves the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be pushing pride instead of humility.

“He has shown the strength of his arm. He has scattered the proud in their conceit. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly.” Luke 1:51-52.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Without God, anything is permitted. – St. Athanasius & F. Dostoyevsky

**
I do hope he was aware of the consequences of eternally undergone death in hell - who many don’t believe exists, but they will have to see, as they disregarded Jesus’ warnings. Jesus wouldn’t have warned us of something that doesn’t exist, and Jesus was not a storyteller of fairy tales.

**

 

[NoelFitz]

Ricmat
After over 350 contributions do you think that this discussion has wandered from its original purpose?

I do find posts here often ad hominem, some are even ad mulierem.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat
After over 350 contributions do you think that this discussion has wandered from its original purpose?

If you take a look back at any of the threads involving evolution, intelligent design, Darwin, creationism, etc. it is apparent that they all branch off into related, and non-related areas.

If you take a look back at any of the threads on this whole forum, it is apparent that the all branch off into related, and non-related areas.

 

[anthony022071]

That explanation is silly for several reasons.

Firstly, the two creation accounts come from different sources and there isn’t the least indication that the author of either was aware of the other.

If they did come from two different sources,the sources were both,in any case,Hebrew. Both narratives show the same God of the Hebrews and the same idea of Creation.

Since the first account in Genesis originated several centuries later than the second, if any ‘retracing of steps’ had been involved, it would have to have been in the other direction.

The scripture writer,or writers,could organize the stories as they pleased. Both narratives tell of the same reality of Creation.

But besides the time difference, the two accounts originated in different lands and cultures, so that there is no reason to expect that they would agree in the details.

Only the Hebrews worshipped the God of the Hebrew scriptures.

Secondly, it is clear from the context that both are serial accounts. The second does not use the literary device of division into days, but the language clearly implies that the events described happened in the order given.

The writer of the article says that the Hebrew language does not have the same tenses as English does.

Since you didn’t reply to the other items in my post, I will assume that you are unable to defend your position and leave it at that.

I’ll get to them. I don’t feel like spending so much time here.
You can’t even defend your positions on macro-evolution,and
whether the creation stories are allegory.

I did, however, due to time restraints, give unfairly short shrift to the last item to which I replied, which was:My curt reply was based on my own belief that the accounts ARE allegorical and DO NOT tell of actual events, just as you suggest.

Well,that is not what the Jews ever thought. The Jews never regarded the stories of Genesis as allegories,but as stories which tell what actually happened. If creation stories are known to be completely symbolic or metaphorical,that is nothing to build a religion upon. Aesop’s fables and Piers Plowman are allegories. Allegories use symbolic characters and actions to represent a moral or a general idea,and the readers of allegory know that it is all symbolic. Genesis doesn’t read like an allegory.

That need not be the case, however. Such an account could very reasonably be allegorical and also true. Christians, for example, consider Adam, the Ark, and Jonah all as archetypes of Christ. The allegory is equally valid whether the stories are literally true or mere folklore.

A story is not valid as historical truth if it not based on real persons and real events. Adam,the Ark,and Jonah may be regarded as archetypes of Christ because they existed.

 

[beeliner]

I do find posts here often ad hominem, some are even ad mulierem.

Not to mention ad nauseam.

 

[beeliner]

1. If they did come from two different sources,the sources were both,in any case,Hebrew.
2. Both narratives show the same God of the Hebrews and the same idea of Creation.
3. The scripture writer,or writers,could organize the stories as they pleased.
4. Both narratives tell of the same reality of Creation.Only the Hebrews worshipped the God of the Hebrew scriptures.
5. The writer of the article says that the Hebrew language does not have the same tenses as English does.
6. Well,that is not what the Jews ever thought. The Jews never regarded the stories of Genesis as allegories,but as stories which tell what actually happened.
7. If creation stories are known to be completely symbolic or metaphorical,that is nothing to build a religion upon.
8. Aesop’s fables and Piers Plowman are allegories. Allegories use symbolic characters and actions to represent a moral or a general idea,and the readers of allegory know that it is all symbolic. Genesis doesn’t read like an allegory.

9a. A story is not valid as historical truth if it not based on real persons and real events.

9b. Adam,the Ark,and Jonah may be regarded as archetypes of Christ because they existed.

1. Uh, no, the ADAPTATIONS were Hebrew. Let’s not be disingenuous here. The SOURCE of the Genesis 1 account is the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which can be reliably dated to about 2000 BC. Genesis 2 comes from older Sumerian and Akkadian legends. These have survived in more-or-less their original forms and can all be examined and compared with Genesis today.
2. Both adaptations are indeed Hebrew.
3. Well, I already covered that. The editors of Genesis could EASILY have removed the inconsistancies and ‘created’ a composite Creation tale, but refused to compromise the integrity of the contradictory accounts by doing so. They apparently considered both to be important artifacts of Jewish culture, though from different areas. Even the plural Elohim of Genesis 1, a remnant of proto-Jewish polytheism, is allowed to remain.
4. The two accounts tell tales that have a few elements in common but more differences. Maybe you’d better read them again!
5. That is true, but irrelevant. Any intelligent person reading Genesis 2 can see that it is a serial account.
6. People of that era believed a lot of legends to be factual. That was hardly exclusive to Jews. Today we are supposed to know better, but some people never seem to get the message!
7. And yet scores of religions, perhaps hundreds, have originated just that way. Scientology is one of the more recent examples.
8. I guess that depends on who is doing the reading. It certainly reads that way to me.

9a. Obviously.

9b. Ridiculous - your logic that is. Jonah might have been a real person, someone had to have written the book which bears his name. As for surviving three days in the belly of a fish…

 

[Deconi]

Firstly, your assertion that they are ADAPTATIONS is a theory. Secondly, it is also THEORY that the SOURCES you cite for the Genesis accounts are factual. Neither are proven, although many have accepted them, in spite the earliest Fathers address of the issues.

The rest of your ‘argument’ then is relegated to the realm of ‘possibilities’ without credible support from neither Jewish sources, nor the ECFs.

Very similar to those who argue about the order of the Gospels being Mark,Matt, Luke,John instead of its proper order as defined and given.

 

[beeliner]

1. Firstly, your assertion that they are ADAPTATIONS is a theory.
2. Secondly, it is also THEORY that the SOURCES you cite for the Genesis accounts are factual. Neither are proven, although many have accepted them, in spite the earliest Fathers address of the issues.
3. The rest of your ‘argument’ then is relegated to the realm of ‘possibilities’ without credible support from neither Jewish sources, nor the ECFs.
4. Very similar to those who argue about the order of the Gospels being Mark,Matt, Luke,John instead of its proper order as defined and given.

1. No, that is a CONCLUSION, arrived at by comparing the pagan sources given with the Biblical version. That is the concensus of modern - and even semi-modern - Bible scholarship, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant. But even if one argues that the evidence for copying is not 100% conclusive, compare the 99+% evidence of copying with the 0% evidence of them being original and take your choice.
2. Here I’m not sure what you mean. That the sources are genuine is well-documented. That the stories themselves are legendary is obvious.
3. Uh, no, that would be the rest - well, actually ALL, of YOUR argument.
4. That order is also well established, with no substantial scholarly opposition.

Faith that is based on anti-intellectualism is not capable of producing scholarship. Fundamentalists can make all of the claims that they want, when asked for evidence they always either back down or lie.

For examples of outright lies, go to ANY ‘creationist’ textbook.

For examples of the backing down, review this very thread. You will not find a single example of substantial support for the literalist view. Only the litany, ‘All the biologists are wrong, all of the encyclopedias are wrong, all of the painstaking research is wrong, all of the scholarly books are wrong, only we cranks have the truth’.

The choice between scholarship and crankmanship is not a difficult one.

 

[NoelFitz]

The preface to the New American Bible has:

The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

Would this not be a clearer and simpler explanation for the two versions of creation in Genesis?

 

[buffalo]

1. Uh, no, the ADAPTATIONS were Hebrew. Let’s not be disingenuous here. The SOURCE of the Genesis 1 account is the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which can be reliably dated to about 2000 BC. Genesis 2 comes from older Sumerian and Akkadian legends. These have survived in more-or-less their original forms and can all be examined and compared with Genesis today.
2. Both adaptations are indeed Hebrew.
3. Well, I already covered that. The editors of Genesis could EASILY have removed the inconsistancies and ‘created’ a composite Creation tale, but refused to compromise the integrity of the contradictory accounts by doing so. They apparently considered both to be important artifacts of Jewish culture, though from different areas. Even the plural Elohim of Genesis 1, a remnant of proto-Jewish polytheism, is allowed to remain.
4. The two accounts tell tales that have a few elements in common but more differences. Maybe you’d better read them again!
5. That is true, but irrelevant. Any intelligent person reading Genesis 2 can see that it is a serial account.
6. People of that era believed a lot of legends to be factual. That was hardly exclusive to Jews. Today we are supposed to know better, but some people never seem to get the message!
7. And yet scores of religions, perhaps hundreds, have originated just that way. Scientology is one of the more recent examples.
8. I guess that depends on who is doing the reading. It certainly reads that way to me.

9a. Obviously.

9b. Ridiculous - your logic that is. Jonah might have been a real person, someone had to have written the book which bears his name. As for surviving three days in the belly of a fish…

The Toledoths of Genesis says different.

 

[edwest2]

To beeliner -

If you are not Catholic, why do you bother posting here? All scripture is inspired by God - fact. God, as God, is capable of performing miracles - fact.

This is a Catholic Forum and if you are just part of the Bible Explanation Industry, why don’t you start your own forum?

You don’t seem to understand that the Living God through the power of the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church today. That miracles happen even in so-called “modern” times and that saints are still canonized, today. This is what Catholics believe, not some revisionist nonsense.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NoelFitz]

Edwest2
I was surprised and disappointed by your reply to Beeliner.

I had thought Catholic Answers was a forum for Catholics to discuss, and be encouraged in their, common faith and for others of good will to seek to find out what Catholics believe.

 

[edwest2]

There is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are numerous papal encyclicals. And they are available online.

I moderate another forum that is packed with atheist secular-humanists. Sometimes, I read things here that almost word for word read like things that group posts on that other forum. I have discounted coincidence regarding the similarity.

And, after reviewing numerous secular humanist, bright, freethinker, atheist, Darwinist, Marxist, Communist and anarchist web sites, I also see the same things:

Attacks on the credibility of the Bible as just a bunch of cobbled together myths. The Bible should never be called “holy,” it is just a book of fairy tales. Also, the Bible was assembled hundreds of years after the fact, how incredible is that?

Which inevitably leads to the fake evolution-creation “debate.” This debate is just an excuse, most of the time, to just repeat the same ‘talking points’ over and over.

I think those who wish to learn about the Bible should consult Catholic and Vatican sources online and reference them, not rehash, rehash and rehash, the same erroneous guesswork that passes for debate on too many internet forums. When a google search can yield numerous references in under 0.5 seconds, it is clear that some posts are about promoting an anti-Biblical ideology and fall outside the norms of an actual debate.

God bless,
Ed