Creationism and life in general

[tonyrey]

Reread post 319. I used quotation marks.

I realise that but you quoted it approvingly without disassociating yourself from:

"This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.".

 

[StAnastasia]

I realise that but you quoted it approvingly without disassociating yourself from: "This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.".

I don’t know whether you actually reread my post. If you had, you should have read, “I don’t agree with the premises, but I can see what drives skeptics.”

 

[StAnastasia]

You seemed to imply that this is a difficulty that has not been surmounted…

In fact, it has not been surmounted, to my knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

In fact, it has not been surmounted, to my knowledge.

I regard the argument that miracles must not compel the world to believe as compelling! When asked for a sign Jesus said the only sign they would see is the sign of Jonah…

 

[ricmat]

Divine Revelation will never be rewritten but the Pope has stated that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine if it is correctly interpreted. The doctrines of the Church have often been refined, explained and given more precision by successive Councils, e.g. the nature of the Blessed Trinity.

So what was it that was “discovered” that enabled the refined and more precise doctrine of the nature of the Blessed Trinity?

Just curious.

 

[grannymh]

Divine Revelation will never be rewritten but the Pope has stated that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine if it is correctly interpreted.

It would be wise to find out which theory of evolution the Pope referred to as well as which Catholic doctrine is currently under direct attack.

The doctrines of the Church have often been refined, explained and given more precision by successive Councils, e.g. the nature of the Blessed Trinity.

This does not relate to evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

It would be wise to find out which theory of evolution the Pope referred to as well as which Catholic doctrine is currently under direct attack.

He pointed out that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

So what was it that was “discovered” that enabled the refined and more precise doctrine of the nature of the Blessed Trinity?

Just curious.

The errors of heretics like Arius and Montanus prompted theologians to deduce the implications of Christ’s teaching, e.g. “The Father and I are One”.

There is a good online summary of the role of the ecumenical councils:

“Eight ecumenical councils, between the fourth and ninth centuries, constituted the first cycle of councils in Church history. The **First Council of Nicaea **(325), which defined the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; The **First Council of Constantinople **defined the divinity of the *Holy Spirit *(381). The **Council of Ephesus **(431) proclaimed the Divine Maternity of Mary; that of Chalcedon(451) defined the doctrine of the two natures in the one person of Christ. The **Second Council of Constantinople **(553) condemned Nestorianism, and the **Third Council of Constantinople **(680-681) formulated the doctrine of the Two Wills of Christ.”

earlychristians.org/fathers_church/ecumenical_councils.html

 

[ricmat]

The errors of heretics like Arius and Montanus prompted theologians to deduce the implications of Christ’s teaching, e.g. “The Father and I are One”.

There is a good online summary of the role of the ecumenical councils:

“Eight ecumenical councils, between the fourth and ninth centuries, constituted the first cycle of councils in Church history. The **First Council of Nicaea **(325), which defined the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; The **First Council of Constantinople **defined the divinity of the *Holy Spirit *(381). The **Council of Ephesus **(431) proclaimed the Divine Maternity of Mary; that of Chalcedon(451) defined the doctrine of the two natures in the one person of Christ. The **Second Council of Constantinople **(553) condemned Nestorianism, and the **Third Council of Constantinople **(680-681) formulated the doctrine of the Two Wills of Christ.”

earlychristians.org/fathers_church/ecumenical_councils.html

You still have me confused.

You seemed previously to be saying that discoveries (as in “scientific discoveries” - including evolution (or not?)) had been used in the past to lead to changes in church doctrine. Those weren’t your exact words, but that’s the sense of where I thought you were going.

The example you provided above has nothing to do with “discoveries”, scientific or otherwise. A heresy is not a discovery. Can you clarify?

It is my understanding In general that teachings of the church already existed, heresies arose which challenged them and started to gather support, and the church needed to re-emphasize existing teaching via the councils to counter the heresies. There were no new “discoveries” resulting from the heresies. The teachings were not new, they were there already and the heretics either forgot that they existed or decided that they were not important (or that they had a better idea.)

We’re getting off track here. Perhaps you could just clarify what direction you were going as I mentioned above.

 

[StrawberryJam]

He pointed out that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity.

No he did not. He pointed out that as long as you give God credit for Evolution, it’s all good.

 

[ricmat]

No he did not. He pointed out that as long as you give God credit for Evolution, it’s all good.

Here’s something I posted long long ago, in a galaxy far far away…

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

quote:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.” end quote.

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

So, apparently the Church does believe that there are theories of evolution which are atheistic.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s something I posted long long ago, in a galaxy far far away…

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

quote:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.” end quote.

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

So, apparently the Church does believe that there are theories of evolution which are atheistic.

Guess which Catholic doctrine is currently being attacked by some Catholics, never mind the atheists.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Here’s something I posted long long ago, in a galaxy far far away…

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

quote:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.” end quote.

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

So, apparently the Church does believe that there are theories of evolution which are atheistic.

Like I said, all he said was if you credit God fine.

Just have to credit God and that makes it Theistic Evolution. Totally fine under those terms.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Guess which Catholic doctrine is currently being attacked by some Catholics, never mind the atheists.

When you cover your bets both ways, you can never be wrong.

Especially when you know you have to cover your bets both ways to keep them happy.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s something I posted long long ago, in a galaxy far far away…

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

quote:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.” end quote.

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

So, apparently the Church does believe that there are theories of evolution which are atheistic.

NeoDarwinism is definitely atheistic because it regards natural selection and survival value as fundamental elements of biological development which dispense with the need for God. It inconsistently extracts the power of reason from blind processes.

 

[inocente]

Inocente, your comment is interesting. A scientist friend told me a few your as back about a Christian prayer group that were assigned to pray for half of a population of couples trying get pregnant through an in vitro fertilization clinic in Japan (these people didn’t even know they were being prayed for half a world away). The couples who were prayed for conceived at a statistically higher rate than the couples who were not prayed for. The difference was so marked that the experiment was rerun to rule out other factors. I’ll try to track down that study for you.

Thanks. There’s a theological issue here.

There are other studies which indicate no effect from prayer, but then this is like those studies which one week say bananas are good for health, the next they’re bad. The problem is there are so many variables.

But suppose this research is correct and praying does have an effect on fertility. The obvious thing to do is rerun it several times to find the active ingredients – is praying out loud more effective than praying silently, do females have more effect than males, etc. That’s the way to maximize the chances of successful prayer.

But is treating God like a vending machine any different from occult spells? Ethically, as Christians, should we even think about starting down this road of testing God?

 

[inocente]

It depends on how we define ‘miracle’. Was St Paul’s Damascus road experience a miracle, i.e., was he really touched by God in some extraordinary manner? What about the resurrection? I’m not sure if you’re saying all miracles are explainable without recourse to the supernatural or if miracles are just possibly not operative today.

I’ve had an experience like Paul’s, only we called it being baptized in the Spirit . God touches lots of folk – how He does I don’t know. It’s certainly spiritual but I don’t think spiritual needs to be supernatural.

The resurrection is a singular event, a miracle if ever there was one. Just as every pop star and sports celebrity is now called a genius, I reckon miracles are devalued unless they are really rare.

 

[rossum]

NeoDarwinism is definitely atheistic because it regards natural selection and survival value as fundamental elements of biological development which dispense with the need for God. It inconsistently extracts the power of reason from blind processes.

Then the Theory of Gravity is also atheistic because it also dispenses with the need for God. There is no term for God in the equations of General Relativity. Show me one scientific theory where there is a term for God in any of the equations.

Do you really have such a shallow view of God that He has to make Himself quite so obvious? If God put the laws of General Relativity in place, why would He be so crass as to put Himself right there is the equations? If God put the laws of evolution in place why do you expect Him to behave any differently?

rossum

 

[razredge]

Your question assumes:

1. God never intervenes for anyone.
2. Prayer is wasted if it is not answered as we expect.
3. Believers and unbelievers live in separate places!

1. I wouldn’t say never, I think it’s just a very rare occurence.
2. Perhaps not since it may grant spiritual and emotional strength to the one praying.
3. Well they do - look at the distribution of religions around the world.

Then why did Jesus tell us to pray for our needs?

I don’t recall the ‘Our Father’ placing much emphasis on asking God to fulfil our physical needs (Other than ‘give us today our Daily Bread’ - which has quite a few interpretations).

The development of doctrine in the light of new discoveries is consistent with the fundamental teaching of the Church.

Glad to see someone agrees with me on that . And of course you’ve already been admonished for saying that.

Most people
understand that the point of praying to God is to deepen one’s relationship with one’s Creator.

True - in that quote I meant ‘praying for miracles/divine intervention’.

Oh dear. These comments sidestep the fact that infallibility *has to do with content and protocol all under the supervision of the Holy Spirit *

Yes - all recognized long afterwards of course - which is why we have geocentrists and monogenists.

For example, coercive miracles defeat the purpose of giving us free will.

I don’t know about that - some Catholics I talk to give me examples of ‘miracles’ (though not very good examples, I must say) that have happened in their lives and are much of the basis for their beliefs.

A scientist friend told me a few your as back about a Christian prayer group that were assigned to pray for half of a population of couples trying get pregnant through an in vitro fertilization clinic in Japan (these people didn’t even know they were being prayed for half a world away). The couples who were prayed for conceived at a statistically higher rate than the couples who were not prayed for. The difference was so marked that the experiment was rerun to rule out other factors. I’ll try to track down that study for you.

I thought empirical evidence for prayer has been non-conclusive at best
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

Other historical examples of the power of prayer at work include the fall of Communism attributed to Our Lady of Fatima and the prayers of the Blue Army, as well as the decisive defeat of the Ottoman fleet at Battle of Lepanto in 1571 again due to the intercession of Mary.

However both cases can hardly be called miracles as the Soviet Union did not exactly thrive and the Papal fleet at Lepanto had more than twice as many guns as the Turks and infantry superiority.

 

[StAnastasia]

But is treating God like a vending machine any different from occult spells? Ethically, as Christians, should we even think about starting down this road of testing God?

That’s typically how a lot of people think of prayer.