Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
What a woodenly literal approach you have, buffalo. It is a good thing that the Bible writers were not as literal as you.
Click to expand...
One has to know the difference in Scriptural genres. You do not as evidenced by your post.
 
buffalo said:
Since when does CCC trump Scripture itself?
Click to expand...
The CCC contains a summary of all Church teachings and the footnotes show which Scripture and other Church documents underpin the teaching.
Remember we are not sola scriptura.
 
Aloysium said:
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.
Click to expand...
You quoted that to evidence what?
Click to expand...
 
489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
 
buffalo said:
Since when does CCC trump Scripture itself?
Click to expand...
Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. The CCC presents the Church’s understanding of Scripture. We can’t simply take our own readings, or even the readings of Saints and Popes, and insist that these are Church teachings.

If you and others don’t believe this then you don’t follow the mind of the Church on Scripture, quite frankly. If you (and edwest, for that matter) continue to insist that your interpretations are articles of Faith despite clear evidence against you then this isn’t a discussion worth having, as it doesn’t serve to edify you nor anyone else reading the thread.

Peace and God bless!
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Ghosty1981:
A subsistent form is a substantial form that exists on its own even if matter is removed, while a non-subsistent form only exists in matter.
Click to expand...
All life comes from God,and returns back to God, because God is life itself.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting post.

In a sense we return to God, but we do so as ourselves. To be ourselves implies having a body to be complete.

According to my understanding of Thomas’ philosophical system, substances are things that endure like a person or dog, although they come into and go out of being. This occurs because there is prime matter, which is not a substance, and does not exist apart from any particular substance. So we are not talking about matter in the modern sense of the word. The substantial form would be that which makes the substance what it is. Neither form or matter are substances, according to that philosophical framework.

The human soul is capable of existence upon death, possessing as it does understanding and will, which I would put together as the capacity for love. It is not mere instinctive behaviour, the actuality of any bodily organ. The spirit is a subsistent, something existing either on its own or in another as an integral part, the formal principle of a human substance. Unlike other subsistent entities, the angels, it is incomplete when it subsists apart from the body, and our soul will again become complete in the general resurrection.

Animals do not appear to possess any behaviour that is not a function of a bodily organ. Their souls are considered to be not subsistent. The form of anything is immaterial by definition that it is not prime matter itself. The human soul is immaterial in a different sense, as a subsistent form because it can exist without matter, while at the same time there is a complete unity of soul and body.

The living substance that is an animal, the unity that is its soul and body, is the subject of the Act of existence, that is God. With mankind the body and subsistent soul are the subject of the Act of creation. Because our soul is incorruptable, not a function of bodily activity that does corrupt in time, it survives death.

So, if this is at all clear, we can understand how are created as a person, a unity of body and soul, but as result of original sin, our body will perish, leaving the soul, which in Jesus Christ, allows for its resurrection.
 
Last edited:
To be clear the challenges to the constant understanding and teaching of Genesis came only 150 years or so ago with darwinism and uniformatarianism.

Specifically, the Church answered the challenges with the:

[The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

On questions of Sacred Scripture](The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission)

June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I follow the long held and constant teaching of the church.
Click to expand...
You follow the long held opinion of certain Saints and theologians. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t confuse it with the constant teaching of the Church.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty1981 said:
You follow the long held opinion of certain Saints and theologians. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t confuse it with the constant teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Now it is up to you to tell me when and who changed the teaching.
 
thistle said:
40.png
Aloysium:
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.
Click to expand...
You quoted that to evidence what?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I thought it self-evident.

Taking another perspective, we can begin by noting that
“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
Click to expand...
That is until after the creation of Adam, when
“the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
Click to expand...
So, we see that
God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Click to expand...
We are ultimately one humanity, descended from one man, through whom we all have fallen, to be saved and redeemed by one man who is God, the one true vine.

Eve, like all of us, descended from that one man, who became two - male and female. She was not an independent creation, but was formed from what was on the outside of Adam, aka rib, that in love mankind is made whole. Self recognizes self in the other and willing what is good for them, is reunited as “one flesh”. It is no coincidence that after Jesus fell into the sleep of death on the cross, His side was pierced and from that wound, arose His bride, the Church. These ontological realities came into existence within the span of time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top