B
- Status
M
minkymurph
Guest
First let me say that this thread has been a great debate! Debates like this can also get very heated and I would also like to applaud all the posters out there who have engaged in the debate in a respectful, reasonable and dignified way despite the conflicting opinions, and who have not resorted to being insulting, fanatical and dismissive of other’s opinions when challenged. that’s the way to engage in fruitful debate. Long may it continue! :clapping:
I feel there are a few ‘red herrings’ that have been thrown in here.
The first one is the existence of the soul and the second one original sin. I would say this needs to be discussed as a separate issue before it can be discussed in conjunction with evolution and I’ll explain why. In the second instance, there are theists such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who reject both evolution and belief in the immortal soul. They believe in the original sin but have a different understanding of it. Therefore, presenting belief in the immortal soul and original sin as a counter-arguments to evolution has no relevance to them. Atheists would argue that outside the bible, there is no evidence for the existence of an immortal soul and not only don’t believe the bible is inspired, they don’t believe in God at all. In which case, original sin is of no consequence either. Therefore, presenting the existence of the immortal soul and original sin as a counter-argument to evolution, is putting the cart before the horse. I won’t even start to go into those who believe in an immortal soul but not the bible or a personal God.
Theists who accept evolution and believe in an immortal soul and original sin need no convincing. Arguing the existence of the soul and original sin with a theist is preaching to the converted even if they do accept evolution. Therefore, what purpose does introducing belief in an immortal soul and original sin into a discussion concerning scientific evidence for evolution serve? If it is being introduce purely for the purpose of proving evolution did not happen and the Genesis account should be taken literally, I would argue this is a mistake for two reasons; 1) it distorts the relationship between science and religion and 2) it is too easily countered.
I feel there are a few ‘red herrings’ that have been thrown in here.
The first one is the existence of the soul and the second one original sin. I would say this needs to be discussed as a separate issue before it can be discussed in conjunction with evolution and I’ll explain why. In the second instance, there are theists such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who reject both evolution and belief in the immortal soul. They believe in the original sin but have a different understanding of it. Therefore, presenting belief in the immortal soul and original sin as a counter-arguments to evolution has no relevance to them. Atheists would argue that outside the bible, there is no evidence for the existence of an immortal soul and not only don’t believe the bible is inspired, they don’t believe in God at all. In which case, original sin is of no consequence either. Therefore, presenting the existence of the immortal soul and original sin as a counter-argument to evolution, is putting the cart before the horse. I won’t even start to go into those who believe in an immortal soul but not the bible or a personal God.
Theists who accept evolution and believe in an immortal soul and original sin need no convincing. Arguing the existence of the soul and original sin with a theist is preaching to the converted even if they do accept evolution. Therefore, what purpose does introducing belief in an immortal soul and original sin into a discussion concerning scientific evidence for evolution serve? If it is being introduce purely for the purpose of proving evolution did not happen and the Genesis account should be taken literally, I would argue this is a mistake for two reasons; 1) it distorts the relationship between science and religion and 2) it is too easily countered.
R
razredge
Guest
These teachings have changed in some form or the other:
Slavery, usury, the purpose of sex, that NFP is not contraception, abortion, that Muslims are pagans, that heretics should be burnt at the stake, no salvation outside the Church etc.
Of course what the historical revisionists often then do to get around the problem is to simply state that all the teachings that haven’t changed were not dogma in the first place. I sincerely hope we won’t have to resort to those kind of mental gymnastics.
Monogenism is insignificant as we don’t need it as a basis for Original Sin (as Pope Benedict himself has shown - see the Modern Genetics & Adam and Eve thread)
G
grannymh
Guest
Do you realize that “issues” in the common meaning of the term has nothing to do with the Catholic Deposit of Faith?
It does seem to me, that you may possibly be unaware of Catholic history regarding the economy of salvation. It would only take a couple of minutes to check the Glossary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
So far, citations for actual published modern genetic research which you described have not been presented. On the other hand, you don’t have to bother with research because you have your agenda already.
Of course, you are not alone in thinking that monogenism is a relatively insignificant teaching. If CAF and BioLogos can be considered a guide, there are plenty of Protestants standing with you. Also, there are some catholics who don’t need genetics to discount monogenism because they already figure that Adam is a symbol of some kind of human truth.
Such is life. Re-inventing Catholicism has become fashionable. Apparently, people continue to underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to preserve the basis of the Catholic Church which is Divine Revelation, not Sola Scriptura.
Blessings,
granny
Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Interesting – I’ve never heard that saying before except from Protestant Fundamentalists i my early teaching days in 1980!
B
buffalo
Guest
It boils down to this - Divine Revelation is true. Therefore areas where faith and reason intersect have to be true. Divine Revelation gives a true north reading and illuminates human reasoning of the science we do.
The main weakness is human reasoning. It needs direction.
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not read it that way. Polygenism is a problem. It means there are souls alive that do not have original sin.
Monogenism is absolutely important. Dogma states all humans have original sin and that is was caused and passed on from our first parents, namely Adam and Eve. In addition we are all brothers and sisters.
B
buffalo
Guest
Slavery and usury you need to check up on. Look in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
What is your source for Muslims being pagans?
G
grannymh
Guest
The ending paragraph of post 89 in Modern Genetics & Adam and Eve thread raises questions. It is not related to the above excerpts. It does not contain the teachings of Pope Benedict. It looks more like a writer’s personal bias.
From post 89
“According to this excerpt, we see here that Original Sin is propograted [sic]** not through a genetic condition (e.g. through a bloodline) but through relationships**. Specifically, we see the breakdown of our connection to other persons (including God). Orignal [sic] Sin is perpetuated because human beings enter a world that is mained [sic] through sin. Genetic monogensim and genetic polygenism are functionally irrelevant for the purposes of the propogration [sic] of Original Sin and its incumbent source.”
The emphsis is mine.
People who are familiar with basic Catholic doctrine would immediately recognize that the words in bold directly contradict Catholic doctrine.
Is it really reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict deliberately presented himself as a heretic?
B
buffalo
Guest
Let us review the Catechism:
**III. ORIGINAL SIN **
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man’s first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288
B
buffalo
Guest
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Bishops who don’t listen to theologians are eventually left in the dust.
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
R
ricmat
Guest
Well, it’s clear now where you see yourself on the totem pole.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
There is no totem pole.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I take your point.
Yes, Divine Revelation is true, and areas were faith and reason intersect have to true. I intend to discuss this in more detail in another post.
Divine Revelation does illuminate human reasoning of science. I could go into a whole discussion as to why but I don’t think you need me to. Suffice to say human reason needing direction is one of them.
However, the nature and purpose of any scientific inquiry is establishment of empirical evidence. That is not the nature and purpose of any theological inquiry, which is why science and religion have not always enjoyed a harmonious relationship! Evolution has been established through empirical evidence as a consequence of scientific inquiry regarding the origins of species. Belief in the immortal soul and original sin has been established through theological inquiry concerning the origins of species transmitted to us through Divine Revelation. Adding belief into any scientific inquiry at the outset would render the inquiry unscientific due to the fact that it would alter the nature of the inquiry. That is why I proposed in my post that evolution should be considered independently of belief in the immortal soul and sin in the first instance, as the nature of the inquiry is not, and shouldn’t be if it is a purely scientific inquiry, to either establish or refute Church teaching concerning the immortal soul and sin.
As Catholics, (not just Catholics of course) we are interested in the relationship between science and religion. However, attempts to establish we were created by God through establishment of empirical evidence is in my opinion, a mistake. Firstly, it is a belief. We didn’t come to believe we have a creator through establishment of empirical evidence as a consequence of scientific inquiry. We believe it as a consequence of Divine Revelation. That in itself makes it topic for theological, not scientific, inquiry. Second, there is no empirical evidence that supports many of our deeply held beliefs; such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ and Real Presence. Therefore, if we are not afraid to stand by these beliefs in the absence of empirical evidence, we can’t we stand by our belief we were created in the absence of empirical evidence? Thirdly, giving scientific arguments against evolution the benefit of the doubt, they may at best disprove evolution. Proving one theory ‘wrong’ does not prove another ‘right,’ and does not ‘prove’ a belief.
R
ricmat
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Evolutionism is philosophy. It does not meet the empirical test, that is, observable, testable, repeatable and predictable.
B
buffalo
Guest
You just caught on?
- Status