EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[The_Barbarian]

I would like to put this thought forward. If the bible says we as human beings were created in the image of God, does that mean that while God can look like anything, that we while in the Image of God, look like God, IF that is so, then Evolution can not be truth no matter what science says,

Since the Church teaches that God is a spirit, and since a spirit (as Jesus says) has no body, then we cannot be in the physical image of God.

No problem at all.

 

[buffalo]

Since the Church teaches that God is a spirit, and since a spirit (as Jesus says) has no body, then we cannot be in the physical image of God.

No problem at all.

Question 93. The end or term of the production of man

1. 
   *] Is the image of God in man?
   *] Is the image of God in irrational creatures?
   *] Is the image of God in the angels more than in man?
   *] Is the image of God in every man?
   *] Is the image of God in man by comparison with the Essence, or with all the Divine Persons, or with one of them?
   *] Is the image of God in man, as to his mind only?
   *] Is the image of God in man’s power or in his habits and acts?
   *] Is the image of God in man by comparison with every object?
   *] The difference between “image” and “likeness”

 

[Dchsknight]

Bible says God does have a body. In Revalation 1:14-16 "His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.”

and Ezekiel 1:26-28 "Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.”

and I will argue with anyone that says God has no body, because Jesus said I and Father are one, if you hath seen me you hath seen the father. So God has a body we know exactly what he looks like, that is Jesus, that is atleast what God showed himself to us as. St. Peter God fully, when Jesus was Transfigured on the mount. St. Paul the Apostle saw jesus fully on the road to Damascus that is why he was blinded for three days.

so God does to have a body and physical appearance, maybe not in any direct way that we can understand, but he does have a body…

 

[StAnastasia]

Since the Church teaches that God is a spirit, and since a spirit (as Jesus says) has no body, then we cannot be in the physical image of God.No problem at all.

Barbarian, are you sure about that? Here’s a recent photo of God:

http://www.pythonline.com/files/pythonline/images/GODSWALL.preview.png

 

[grannymh]

Barbarian, are you sure about that? Here’s a recent photo of God:

Pardon me. That “photo” needs to be trashed or given another name.

 

[StAnastasia]

Pardon me. That “photo” needs to be trashed or given another name.

Granny, it’s an image of God, with some reference to the “imperial God” of the late empire. There were of course the iconoclasts of the Byzantine period, but Christians have a long history of creating images of God. I’m not opposed to images myself, so long as we bear in mind that all images reflect what we imagine God to be like; in that sense images are models. See Jaroslav Pelkian’s stimulating book Jesus through the Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). He includes images of a Japanese and an African Jesus.

Do you know which tradition the image I posted is from?

StAnastasia

 

[Orogeny]

Granny, it’s an image of God, with some reference to the “imperial God” of the late empire. There were of course the iconoclasts of the Byzantine period, but Christians have a long history of creating images of God. I’m not opposed to images myself, so long as we bear in mind that all images reflect what we imagine God to be like; in that sense images are models. See Jaroslav Pelkian’s stimulating book Jesus through the Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). He includes images of a Japanese and an African Jesus.

Do you know which tradition the image I posted is from?

StAnastasia

The Holy Grail tradition?

Quote God (from the movie): "Every time I try to talk to someone it’s “sorry this” and “forgive me that” and “I’m not worthy”…

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

.

Do you know which tradition the image I posted is from?

StAnastasia

It looks like the tradition of the old man with a gray beard updated by Stephen King. Or possibly a projection of evolution gone wild. :bigyikes:

 

[edwest2]

Yes it has.

It has painted itself into a corner. Without a great paradigm shift it will not be able to get out. In the meantime the public mistrust of science and scientists grows.

Most leading scientists, without which science cannot be done, have made a choice – atheism. After rejecting God, they claim to see. But science cannot prove the work of God, or so it’s been mentioned here, yet those who are for “science,” say, oh no, it can. Here is our evidence. But it is evidence from the blind. From those who find in coincidence and “nature” a reason for things happening. But nature has no mind or will.

Further, it should be obvious that all this is not about educating Catholics. Not about promoting truth either. Those who reject God seek their gain here, now, or as soon as possible. That’s why they want everyone to ‘just say yes to evolution.’

Do not be deceived. The Church’s constant teaching will remain.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

The Holy Grail tradition?Peace
Tim

Indeed – the Grail tradition: “Oh, don’t grovel! If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people groveling.”

 

[reggieM]

Pride is the greatest sin. The God is deceptive argument is bogus. It assumes we can have complete knowledge and understanding of all we observe despite our human limitations.

Yes, it is bogus. Even the atheist Dawkins can see that nature “appears as if it was created for a purpose”. He struggles with that because it is so evident and obvious.

The Catholic Darwinists say that God made it appear as if nature was designed, but in reality, it came about by random mutations and natural selection – accidental natural processes.

So, God deceives people by making them think that nature was designed by Him, according to the evolutionist.

 

[reggieM]

Most leading scientists, without which science cannot be done, have made a choice – atheism.

True.

After rejecting God, they claim to see.

They are blind. Atheism provides no hope at all – only despair.

From those who find in coincidence and “nature” a reason for things happening. But nature has no mind or will.

It cannot generate freedom either because everything is determined by natural laws.

Those who reject God seek their gain here, now, or as soon as possible. That’s why they want everyone to ‘just say yes to evolution.’

True – it’s about propaganda and lies.

 

[StAnastasia]

So, God deceives people by making them think that nature was designed by Him, according to the evolutionist.

No. Catholics know the world was created by God, and that God allows it to develop with its own integrity. ID deceives people into thinking that science capitulates before nature as intrinsically unknowable.

 

[The_Barbarian]

ii) Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature – more especially a magnified man – and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism.
Catholic Encyclopedia - God

Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man’s; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him.
ibid - Anthropomorphism

 

[edwest2]

No. Catholics know the world was created by God, and that God allows it to develop with its own integrity. ID deceives people into thinking that science capitulates before nature as intrinsically unknowable.

Scientists. The people who write the papers which end up, in some form, in the textbooks, decide what children are taught. When they appear on television and use the same ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution to say, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” How much plainer can this be? The God Delusion anyone?

ID, as presented here, is a purely political concept.

Cardinal Schoenborn in Finding Design in Nature (New York Times article) states that the immanent design in nature is actual design. (No, once again, not the dreaded keep it out of my school ID but God’s work.)

For those who defend science here, make up your mind: Either science is silent about God or it’s not. If it is - your evidence is not whole, it is missing other vital areas of reason we still need.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

What do you think the cart is? The cart seems to be creationism, which should never be put before God.

I often think of adventure as going beyond the visibly known.

Blessings,
granny

 

[edwest2]

No. Catholics know the world was created by God, and that God allows it to develop with its own integrity. ID deceives people into thinking that science capitulates before nature as intrinsically unknowable.

ID, the political variety, says no such thing. In its basic form, it indicates that complex, coded information does not write itself. Human beings know that to write a code that produces tangible, visible objects or results, requires intelligence. Also, if there is design in Nature, and Cardinal Schoenborn says there is, then the statement that you can’t get design without a designer is true.

But the keep-your-religion-out-of-my-public-school crowd freak out at the implication. A designer? Could it be God? Oh please don’t let it be God. Because if people are led to believe it even might be God, then, then… atheism will have a harder time of it.

As one poster wrote to me a while ago: “I want no mention of a creator.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

In its basic form, it indicates that complex, coded information does not write itself. Human beings know that to write a code that produces tangible, visible objects or results, requires intelligence. Also, if there is design in Nature, and Cardinal Schoenborn says there is, then the statement that you can’t get design without a designer is true.Peace,
Ed

Ed, IDers have yet to produce evidence that someone wrote “complex, coded information.” This is a belief – and it is certainly compatible with theism – but it’s simply not one that science can demonstrate. I don’t think anyone has come up with a sure-fire scientific proof that complex specified information is God-written. What would such a proof look like? How would you know it’s God writing?

 

[grannymh]

Yes, it is bogus. Even the atheist Dawkins can see that nature “appears as if it was created for a purpose”. He struggles with that because it is so evident and obvious.

The Catholic Darwinists say that God made it appear as if nature was designed, but in reality, it came about by random mutations and natural selection – accidental natural processes.

So, God deceives people by making them think that nature was designed by Him, according to the evolutionist.

The original “deliberately deceptive” phrase followed this quote by grannymh post 335, page 23
The more I read about genetics, the more I believe that God didn’t need to follow human genetic principles. He created from scratch. Thus, Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in. The term preternatural comes to mind.

Alec answered in post 345
I don’t think it makes good sense to declare that “Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in”, (quite apart from the fact that genetics is as old as living things) unless you are also willing to conclude that God is deliberately deceptive.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The idea was that in creating Eve and Adam, God was not bound by any human rules of genetics. Now, how could God be even considered deceptive if He were doing His own thing regarding a definitely unique creation. Am I implying that the genetics of Eve and Adam were different than others? Not really. What I am saying is that Eve and Adam were a special creation. Or maybe something is still elusive about genetics which of course are as old as living things.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[hecd2]

In your post, all you do is attempt to editorialise what I say and to put words in my mouth. If we are to have a discussion, you have to leave the description of my position to me, rather than attempting to tell me what I think. We had this situation once before when you pronounced that you knew better than I do what value I am able to take from religious literature. To be honest, I feel that I am being unwise in attempting to engage you again in a constructive way, because history says that you will twist what I say and turn it into simplistic propaganda.

I can understand your view well enough from the above answer.

There, you see. I didn’t give an answer or a view. I asked you a question in order to understand your difficulty in reconciling morality with atheism. Here it is again. Perhaps, you’ll answer it this time:

Do you think that without God:

• we wouldn’t *know *what was moral and immoral, or
• we wouldn’t *care *what was moral or immoral, or
• the difference between morality and immorality would not exist?

Materialist philosophy works only with the laws of nature (evolution) acting on material properties. “Freedom” or “the obligation” to do what is morally right does not exist since the laws of nature drive all of nature (from the emergence of the first cell to the evolution of apes).

So you would you say that obligations must be imposed by an external agent? The obligation of parents to care for their children is universally recognised, and to neglect them is universally deemed reprehensible. This does not depend on whether this is viewed from a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jovian or an atheist perspective.

Some kind of moral norms can be imposed by the community or by a tyrant but these will have some kind of pragmatic purpose or end. A transcendent future state and a final judgement from a personal Creator does not exist so there are no consequences for immoral behavior beyond what the community might impose (although any individual can “get way with” violations of the moral laws).

So is your argument that morality derives from the possibility of punishment in an afterlife?

Again, these would not be “obligations” but merely evolutionary patterns determined for individuals. It seems that evolutionary success in the population co-exists with egotism, tyranny, slavery, and aggressive warfare so whatever “morality” results from the natural law would have to include such activities as being “moral”.

I hardly should have to remind you that Catholicism supported as moral the Divine Right of Kings, the Crusades, slavery, torture, imperialism and various other practices that we now regard as immoral. I am not claiming that the Church is an evil institution - in fact, it does immense good in its ministry to the poor and the sick, and in education. I am merely pointing out that the Church has no monopoly on discerning morality, or establishing a universal and constant moral code. The sensibilities of the Church have developed at the same time as the rest of society, and it is subject to the same societal norms as every other institution.

Nazis, mafia, suicide-terrorists and nihilists of various stripes each have some kind of “moral code” but it’s directed at a purpose and each would have to be justified by evolutionary-philosophy, as I see it.

Well, it’s impossible to sweep the debates about normative ethics under the carpet. The Albigensian crusaders, the Christian persecutors of Jews throughout Europe (notoriously in Spain - anti-semitism did not start with the Nazis but had its roots deep in Christian Europe), the forced converters of Central and South American people all have a moral code too. Again, I am not singling out the Church, merely pointing out that it has condoned things which today, we would regard as wrong. Normative ethical debate resulting in changes of view occur in the Church, as they do in the rest of society.

If there was no God, I could imagine that “survival” or perhaps hedonism of some kind would be the ultimate reason for doing things. But ultimately, it’s the classic problem for atheism - namely, that death is the complete end for the individual person and whatever came before is meaningless.

Again - you have failed to answer my question:

What is the highest or ultimate reason for which we should do or shouldn’t do things?

I am trying to understand your position on morality.

Alec
evolutionpages.com