EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gottle of Geer:
Life after death does not occur in history, so the question is meaningless
Click to expand...
At what point in the evolutionary process did a human with an immortal soul, who would experience an afterlife after death, come about?
 
Marocchino said:
Gottle of Geer:

At what point in the evolutionary process did a human with an immortal soul, who would experience an afterlife after death, come about?
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to argue that evolution violates a theological position when it has already been deemed to be non-contradictory? I figure if there was something shown to be contradictory the Pope would’ve said it.
 
Marocchino said:
Gottle of Geer:

At what point in the evolutionary process did a human with an immortal soul, who would experience an afterlife after death, come about?
Click to expand...
There is no way to tell with precision. However, 40,000 years ago hominids were burying their dead with provisions and tools, suggesting the hope that death is not the end of existence.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There is nothing worth evaluating. If someone tells you that thunder is caused by the rumbling of the wheels of the weather-god’s chariot, d’you take that in consideration as a serious explanation ? If not, then why think that Psalm 29 is giving the true cause that sheep drop lambs when it says that the voice of the Lord is the cause ? If that is not worthy being taken seriously as the scientific cause that sheep drop lambs - why must people be expected to take Genesis 1 as a scientifically adequate account of the creation of things ?​

This is one of the follies of “creation science” - it concentrates on Genesis 1, & insists it must be science, while ignoring all the other phenomena in nature that the Bible mentions & gives a cause that is not scientific. CS is totally bankrupt, intellectually & theologically. It is sheer superstition, nothing more.

You do realise that academic progress depends on criticism ? ET as such however is not going to collapse - it is too solid for that. Those who dislike it keep sounding its death-knell - only to find it is full of life; just as happens with Biblical scholarship. Critical scholarship is here to stay - because it is well-adapted to what it studies; & ET’s here to stay too. What is to replace either of them ?​

If we just discovered the Bible buried in some ruins I could agree to a degree. However, the Church has interpreted Scripture from the beginning in that understanding enriched as time has gone by.
Click to expand...
 
As far as I know, the Pope has never directly addressed this specific question. I am simply asking for an explanation.

The afterlife is either / or. Either a creature’s soul survives death or it does not. How can this mesh with gradual human evolution?
 
Dispector said:
Why are you trying to argue that evolution violates a theological position when it has already been deemed to be non-contradictory? I figure if there was something shown to be contradictory the Pope would’ve said it.
Click to expand...
Hello - Adam and Eve being our first parents, Eve from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, and infused knowledge all have been constant teachings of the Church. These have to be reconciled.
 
StAnastasia said:
There is no way to tell with precision. However, 40,000 years ago hominids were burying their dead with provisions and tools, suggesting the hope that death is not the end of existence.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to neanderthals this has been disproven.
 
buffalo said:
Hello - Adam and Eve being our first parents, Eve from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, and infused knowledge all have been constant teachings of the Church. These have to be reconciled.
Click to expand...
It has been. By using mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA testing they have shown all of current humanity has been traced back to one male and one female. Coincidentally, scientists refer to these people as ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. Granted, these two individuals are predicted to be a a few thousand years apart, but it does show humanity stemmed from one man and one woman.
 
Dispector said:
It has been. By using mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA testing they have shown all of current humanity has been traced back to one male and one female. Coincidentally, scientists refer to these people as ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. Granted, these two individuals are predicted to be a a few thousand years apart, but it does show humanity stemmed from one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
OK - how bout the rest of them.

And rossum will soon chime in on the DNA statement.🙂
 
buffalo said:
Eve from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, and infused knowledge all have been constant teachings of the Church. These have to be reconciled.
Click to expand...
Evolution does not attempt to answer those questions… nor has it ever. I will not attempt to answer those questions either. I do know that evolution (implemented by God) could provide the mechanism by which we physically got here and God can utilize whatever mechanism to impart a soul and grace upon man.

Secondly, given that the soul is spiritual in nature I highly doubt any theory will sufficiently answer these questions… which places the question on mere speculation.
 
Another question for StAnastasia:

StAnastasia: I wonder if the concept of an “immortal soul” is even helpful, theologically speaking.

Catechism1022: Each man receives his eternal retribution in his **immortal soul **at the very moment of his death

If you believe that the concept of an immortal soul is not “theologically helpful”, do you suggest that the Catechism be revised to not include this concept?
 
Orogeny said:
This is what it really comes down to. Either you accept the science or reject it because the Church didn’t have the science at their disposal 1500 years ago. Your approach is clear - we are locked in our understanding of divine revelation to that which was accepted 1500 years ago. We cannot learn anything from scriptures and the Church cannot develope a deeper understanding over time. We truly are required to believe a literal 6 day creation 6,000 years ago and that the earth is the immovable center of the universe. We MUST reject science.

I reject your version of the faith. I will NOT deny the intelligence that God gave to us simply because some people are scared of the implications to THEIR faith. I will side with our Pope.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
You just simply can’t answer the point. it is a tough nut to crack because the Church throughout the ages has been taking a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know of no Pope who has overturned previous Popes. By overturn I mean in official documents not speeches or interviews.
The science that you site is subjective. People dispute it. Even if you think they are nuts. SORRY!!! WHO YOU GOING TO BELIEVE THE CHURCH OR SCIENCE?
 
Rogerteder said:
SORRY!!! WHO YOU GOING TO BELIEVE THE CHURCH OR SCIENCE?
Click to expand...
Both.

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God. The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution - approved by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Clearly, the current Pope accepts evolution although it is not clear which theory he would support. This is completely consistent with Pope John Paul II’s position when he noted that evolution was more than a hypothesis. In scientific terms, that is acceptance.

Now, which will you choose? Your interpretation or the Church?

Peace

Tim
 
Rogerteder said:
You just simply can’t answer the point. it is a tough nut to crack because the Church throughout the ages has been taking a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know of no Pope who has overturned previous Popes. By overturn I mean in official documents not speeches or interviews.
Click to expand...
Are the current and previous pope heretics Roger? If a 6-day creation is an infallible teaching of the Church, any pope that teaches anything contrary to that would be teaching a heresy, right? So how about it. Are Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II heretics? Can a heretic hold the Seat of Peter? Tough nut to crack, isn’t it.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Are the current and previous pope heretics Roger? If a 6-day creation is an infallible teaching of the Church, any pope that teaches anything contrary to that would be teaching a heresy, right? So how about it. Are Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II heretics? Can a heretic hold the Seat of Peter? Tough nut to crack, isn’t it.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect understanding of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility has only been used once when speaking of the Assumption of Mary. The Creationist belief has never been stated to be an infallible statement and thus is subject to change as new information is brought to light.

Not so tough a nut to crack after all. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top