EVOLUTION: what about this

[redhen]

“All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth; they also have one final end, God”.
15 October 2008 The theological word “human race” as used by the Pope isn’t the same used by scientists. AMEN!

So if you were a homo neanderthalis 30,000 years ago, or a homo florenis 13,000 years ago; it must have sucked to be to you since you were the wrong chosen hominid species. Have I got that right?

 

[wildleafblower]

Do you think Neanderthals knew God? If you take a snippet from my previous message then you miss the point of my posting regarding ADAM and EVE. Perhaps you didn’t understand therein the words of the Pope “the origins of the history of God’s People”. Like I said before the bible isn’t a science book.

 

[hecd2]

Alec, I’m sure you would agree that the recognized scientific impossibility of a literal “Adam” and “Eve” does not negate Catholic hamartiology any more than the impossibility of an literal Aristotelian “transubstantiation” negates Catholic eucharistic theology.

StAnastasia

If, by Catholic hamartiology, you mean the recognition of the propensity of humans to do evil knowingly, the great difficulty that we encounter in attempting to live according to a moral code, and the fact that we all fall short of the best that we can be, then I agree with you. Human cognition entails consciousness of wrongdoing and guilt which is unique amongst creatures, and the doctrine of Original Sin seems to me to speak of this and our loss of innocence.

I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that humans are guilty, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed an offence against morality. I consider all doctrines that visit the sin of the parents on the offspring as at best misguided, at worst iniquitous. Those ideas, as expressed in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9 have the potential to promote great wrong. I robustly reject them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

Alec, I’m sure you would agree that the recognized scientific impossibility of a literal “Adam” and “Eve” does not negate Catholic hamartiology any more than the impossibility of an literal Aristotelian “transubstantiation” negates Catholic eucharistic theology.

StAnastasia

You really should read what I previously presented since you don’t have a Masters degree in theology and you aren’t a Catholic Theologian. Read what the Pope says and learn. I acknowledge you agree with the Pope unless you state otherwise :

When you make the mistake as you have above you give every scientist in the world reason to attack the Church! For heavens sake please stop it! The bible isn’t a science book but rather a historical book of events. Adam and Eve were people (a man and woman) who knew God. Adam and Eve aren’t a myth nor are they from a fictionalized storybook. An example of an event pertaining to Adam and Eve in the bible reflects:
EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION
ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE LORD

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

St Peter’s Basilica
Sunday, 6 January 2008

[snip- Please read the entire document]
The Gospel event which we commemorate on the Epiphany - the Magi’s visit to the Child Jesus in Bethlehem - thus refers us back to the origins of the history of God’s People, that is, to Abraham’s call. We are in chapter 12 of the Book of Genesis. The first 11 chapters are like great frescos that answer some of humanity’s fundamental questions: what is the origin of the universe and of the human race? Where does evil come from? Why are there different languages and civilizations?

Among the narratives with which the Bible begins, there appears a first “covenant” which God made with Noah after the flood. It was a universal covenant concerning the whole of humanity: the new pact with Noah’s family is at the same time a pact with “all flesh”. Then, before Abraham’s call, there is another great fresco which is very important for understanding the meaning of Epiphany: that of the Tower of Babel. The sacred text says that in the beginning, “the whole earth had one language and few words” (Gn 11: 1). Then men said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gn 11: 4). **The consequence of this sin of pride, similar to that of Adam and Eve, was the confusion of languages and the dispersion of humanity over all the earth **(cf. Gn 11: 7-8). This means “Babel” and was a sort of curse, similar to being banished from the earthly paradise.
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.

The Pope goes on by stating:

From the message of His Holiness Benedict XVI on January 1st, 2008: “At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world. I do so by offering for our common reflection the theme which I have placed at the beginning of this message. It is one which I consider particularly important: the human family, a community of peace. The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: “All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth; they also have one final end, God”.
15 October 2008
vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop%20Monete&prod=M_2008_006.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop Monete&prod=M_2008_006.

The theological word “human race” as used by the Pope isn’t the same used by scientists. AMEN!

 

[redhen]

Do you think Neanderthals knew God?

Why not? They created and used tools. They created pieces of art. They placed flowers on their graves. Does that not indicate thoughts about an afterlife?

But I guess they meant nothing, since they weren’t they the Chosen homo sapiens species (to say nothing of Chosen race).

 

[reggieM]

I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that humans are guilty, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed an offence against morality.

Could you explain that further? It seems that you’re saying that “humans are not guilty of anything, even if they have committed an offense against morality”. Is that what you meant? Or are you only speaking about Original Sin and not subsequent moral evils that humans may commit?

 

[hecd2]

Could you explain that further? It seems that you’re saying that “humans are not guilty of anything, even if they have committed an offense against morality”.

That is not what I said.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

That is not what I said.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

“I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that humans are guilty, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed an offence against morality.”

You do not subscribe to the idea that humans are guilty.

 

[StAnastasia]

You really should read what I previously presented since you don’t have a Masters degree in theology and you aren’t a Catholic Theologian.

So, being bereft of the ability to do anything other than cut and paste what other people have said, you now resort to lying about and slandering other participants on this forum? Isn’t that against the forum’s rules about charitable posting? Is it too much to ask that you do your own theological thinking, instead of badmouthing the rest of us who do?

 

[StAnastasia]

So if you were a homo neanderthalis 30,000 years ago, or a homo florenis 13,000 years ago; it must have sucked to be to you since you were the wrong chosen hominid species. Have I got that right?

redhen, I’m not sure exactly what position you are arguing about “chosenness” here. As I read Genesis 12, I understand “choseness” to refer to the experience of the Hebrew people in particular – who traced their theological roots to a figure they named "Abraham – not to Homo sapiens in general.

A theology of election therefore does not impinge upon paleoanthropology. It’s not that Homo florsiensis or Homo neanderthalis were not chosen, but that evolutionarily they were outcompeted by Homo sapiens, or were otherwise not selected for. The anthropology comes first, and then the theological interpretation is applied on that foundation.

StAnastasia

 

[wildleafblower]

So, being bereft of the ability to do anything other than cut and paste what other people have said, you now resort to lying about and slandering other participants on this forum? Isn’t that against the forum’s rules about charitable posting? Is it too much to ask that you do your own theological thinking, instead of badmouthing the rest of us who do?

I wouldn’t call it lying or slandering perhaps I may have misunderstood the topic we recently partipated together when you said that you “have a theology degree lower than a masters” and that you “teach in a university that offers theology bachelors degrees.” All I was suggesting was for you to read what the Pope said with hope of you learning something new. (ref. 262) He is a world reknownd theologian. I thought he would be of help to you. Don’t you agree with him? (ref. 262) Also, I’ve been extremely charitable to you by answering your questions here whereas you have failed time and time again to answer mine on other topics. How about answering my question now.

 

[redhen]

A theology of election therefore does not impinge upon paleoanthropology. It’s not that Homo florsiensis or Homo neanderthalis were not chosen, but that evolutionarily they were outcompeted by Homo sapiens, or were otherwise not selected for.

So, whoever came out on top, in the war of competition, was chosen?

If it’s one thing homo sapiens abhors, it’s competition. That’s why they are no wolves or bears west of Poland/Austria. That’s also why the last wild lion in Europe died sometime 2,000 years ago.

Then again, I suppose that’s just our selfish genes in action again.

 

[StAnastasia]

I wouldn’t call it lying or slandering

Slander – stating falsely and publicly that I do not have a doctorate and am not a theologian – is not inviting of reply.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

So, whoever came out on top, in the war of competition, was chosen? If it’s one thing homo sapiens abhors, it’s competition. That’s why they are no wolves or bears west of Poland/Austria. That’s also why the last wild lion in Europe died sometime 2,000 years ago. Then again, I suppose that’s just our selfish genes in action again.

Redhen, I wouldn’t put it that way. Obviously every creature is centered upon it’s own story: spiders are arachnocentric; deer are cervocentric, humans are anthropocentric. Of course the temptation is to paint a triumphalistic picture of ourselves, so, naturally, the temptation is to say that Homo sapiens triumphed over Homo neanderthalensis.

Theologically, we can take a more humble approach, as does Karl Rahner, in awe that God took hold of creation in flesh, rather than in spirit, “et incarnatus est.” For Teilhard de Chardin the incarnation is “the renewal and the restoral of all the forces and the powers of the universe; Christ is the instrument, the Center, the Term of all creation”; by Christ “everything is created, sanctified, vivified.” (La Vie Cosmique) Whether through contingency or by design, on earth God assumed in Christ the flesh of Homo sapiens rather than of Homo neanderthalensis. That’s theologizing on what we observe.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

But we are more exceptional than redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, and elephants. We live from one end of the earth to the other. They do not. We control much of our environment. They do not. Someday we will probably populate other planets. They will not. We can temper any negative effects on our local environment using technology. They can not.

Their biological limits are NOT the same as our biological limits.

I often see arguments similar to yours to justify abortion and contraception in contradiction to Church teaching. I also see arguments similar to yours which suggest that we must all ride bicycles and live in a primitive agrarian society so as to avoid imposing on “animal rights”, and even “plant rights” (which I posted on earlier). This type of thinking borders on nature worship (Gaia and all that).

As stewards of God’s creation, and priests in his cosmic temple (so to speak), we have a responsibility to nature. But that responsibility does not extend to contradicting church teachings or nature worship.

IMHO.

How so?

We are created in the image and likeness of God, and alone in Creation have the ability to reason, engage in procreative love, and have free will.

I think all the species of bacteria would beg to differ with you.

The last I heard, there are no bacteria called redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, or elephants.

Hopefully you can bring along some seeds and DNA samples so you can repopulate a new Earth, that we’ve destroyed.

Well, perhaps you’re from another Earth or something that “we’ve destroyed”. I support the Catechism’s position which I mentioned earlier - that we are stewards of God’s creation and have a responsibility towards nature. But not to the extent of granting human rights to animals and plants.

Bophal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, need I go on?

Perhaps you were involved with these things…I wasn’t. Sorry.

How many humans do you think can comfortably inhabit this planet? 6 billion? 9 billion? 12 billion? How many?

So comfort is more important to you than following God’s will?

This has nothing to do with pantheism or Gaia worship (whatever that is)…

You need to look at the blog I linked to. There are all these things, and more.

Again, the greatest mass extinction since the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago) has been man made.

So you know the history of the world from 65 million years ago to present. Amazing. I’ve never heard of anybody with that skill before.

No one is advocating nature worship. Who has said that on this forum? This is an example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

No one advocates pantheism? What about the panthiests?

I never said that anyone on the forum advocated that. Re-read my post.

 

[ricmat]

I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that humans are guilty, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed an offence against morality. I consider all doctrines that visit the sin of the parents on the offspring as at best misguided, at worst iniquitous.

I don’t think it’s so much an issue of guilt being visited on the offspring. I’ve heard the situation being described as Adam and Eve having preternatural “gifts” that were taken away due to their sin. These gifts were not passed along.

If your grandfather gave your father a billion dollars, then you father spent it all, that leaves none for you. Does that mean you’ve been cheated?

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip post 262]You really should read what I previously presented since you don’t have a Masters degree in theology and you aren’t a Catholic Theologian. Read what the Pope says and learn. I acknowledge you agree with the Pope unless you state otherwise :
StAnastasia;4629561:

So, being bereft of the ability to do anything other than cut and paste what other people have said, you now resort to lying about and slandering other participants on this forum? Isn’t that against the forum’s rules about charitable posting? Is it too much to ask that you do your own theological thinking, instead of badmouthing the rest of us who do?
wildleafblower;4629679:

I wouldn’t call it lying or slandering perhaps I may have misunderstood the topic we recently partipated together when you said that you “have a theology degree lower than a masters” and that you "teach in a university that offers theology bachelors degrees

." All I was suggesting was for you to read what the Pope said with hope of you learning something new. (ref. 262) He is a world reknownd theologian. I thought he would be of help to you. Don’t you agree with him? (ref. 262) Also, I’ve been extremely charitable to you by answering your questions here whereas you have failed time and time again to answer mine on other topics. How about answering my question now.

Slander – stating falsely and publicly that I do not have a doctorate and am not a theologian – is not inviting of reply.

StAnastasia

I never said you didn’t have a doctorate nor did I say you weren’t a theologian. As you must know to be a Catholic Theologian, you must have an Master’s or higher and the approval of the local bishop. Do you? Just wondering. I meant no harm. I apologize if you took offense. The Roman Catholic theologians (bishops) aren’t offensive when talking to us Catholics. They sure don’t become upset like you do or fail to answer questions I’ve repeatedly asked you on different topics. Why won’t you answer my questions? You make me think that you avoid them because the majority of them are by the Pope(s). Simple question- Do you agree with the teaching authority of the Church which is the Pope? Why do you constantly attack me for pasting articles from the Vatican:Holy See that are mostly from the Pope(s)? I find it insulting to be continuously scolded by you when doing so on topics we both participate in. Is it because you think you know more than the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops?

Peace be with.

 

[StAnastasia]

I never said you didn’t have a doctorate nor did I say you weren’t a theologian.

Quoting you (post 262): “You really should read what I previously presented since you don’t have a Masters degree in theology and you aren’t a Catholic Theologian.”

 

[reggieM]

Quoting you (post 262): “You really should read what I previously presented since you don’t have a Masters degree in theology and you aren’t a Catholic Theologian.”

Who is your bishop?

 

[buffalo]

When you make the mistake as you have above you give every scientist in the world reason to attack the Church! For heavens sake please stop it! The bible isn’t a science book but rather a historical book of events. Adam and Eve were people (a man and woman) who knew God. Adam and Eve aren’t a myth nor are they from a fictionalized storybook. An example of an event pertaining to Adam and Eve in the bible reflects:
EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION
ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE LORD

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

St Peter’s Basilica
Sunday, 6 January 2008

[snip- Please read the entire document]
The Gospel event which we commemorate on the Epiphany - the Magi’s visit to the Child Jesus in Bethlehem - thus refers us back to the origins of the history of God’s People, that is, to Abraham’s call. We are in chapter 12 of the Book of Genesis. The first 11 chapters are like great frescos that answer some of humanity’s fundamental questions: what is the origin of the universe and of the human race? Where does evil come from? Why are there different languages and civilizations?

Among the narratives with which the Bible begins, there appears a first “covenant” which God made with Noah after the flood. It was a universal covenant concerning the whole of humanity: the new pact with Noah’s family is at the same time a pact with “all flesh”. Then, before Abraham’s call, there is another great fresco which is very important for understanding the meaning of Epiphany: that of the Tower of Babel. The sacred text says that in the beginning, “the whole earth had one language and few words” (Gn 11: 1). Then men said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gn 11: 4). **The consequence of this sin of pride, similar to that of Adam and Eve, was the confusion of languages and the dispersion of humanity over all the earth **(cf. Gn 11: 7-8). This means “Babel” and was a sort of curse, similar to being banished from the earthly paradise.
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.

The Pope goes on by stating:

From the message of His Holiness Benedict XVI on January 1st, 2008: “At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world. I do so by offering for our common reflection the theme which I have placed at the beginning of this message. It is one which I consider particularly important: the human family, a community of peace. The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: “All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth; they also have one final end, God”.
15 October 2008
vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop%20Monete&prod=M_2008_006.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop Monete&prod=M_2008_006.

The theological word “human race” as used by the Pope isn’t the same used by scientists. AMEN!

God made sure He put the science filter on? I wonder why He would do that.

God: Let me see - I have to Reveal things to my people. But when it comes to science I will filter it. I have to take measures to exclude any truths of Revelation that would intersect with science.

Give me a break.

Now, I do agree that Revelation is not meant to be a science textbook. I do not agree that it has nothing to say about scientific truth. The problem is to know where.