EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Doctor Sister Ilia Delio, OSF, explores the theme in greater theological depth in Christ in Evolution (Orbis, 2008). The divine Logos (“word”) is spoken throughout the universe, and where planetary chemical and climatic conditions are suitable for the evolution of complex, morally responsive and spiritually sensitive life, the Logos can become incarnate. 2000 years ago the “logos” or cosmic “Christ” became incarnate on earth as Homo sapiens: “And the Word was made flesh (Homo sapiens) and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory…full of grace and truth.” In the other 300 billion galaxies “the only begotten of the Father” may assume very different manifestations, but it is one and the same Logos.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Wow. Now this is pure speculation. Planetary conditions do not, on their own, become suitable. God created all things in the universe from nothing. God is a direct causal agent.

And here is where the falsehood of Evolutionary Psychology deceives: there is no reason for “morally responsive and spiritually sensitive life” to appear. None. The financial experts on Wall Street turned off their moral responsiveness and spiritual sensitivity and caused a global economic disaster. Also, spiritual sensitivity is such a broad term. There is only good and evil as taught by the Church. Otherwise, deceptive doctrines can and do lead people in the wrong direction, such as the New Age.

In the end, Original Sin is the answer that science does not recognize.

Adam and Eve appear to be special creations.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Wow. Now this is pure speculation. Planetary conditions do not, on their own, become suitable. God created all things in the universe from nothing. God is a direct causal agent.
Click to expand...
No more speculative than talking snakes, forbidden fruits, magical floods, self-cleansing arks, 30 million species on one boat, female pillars of salt…
 
StAnastasia said:
No more speculative than talking snakes, forbidden fruits, magical floods, self-cleansing arks, 30 million species on one boat, female pillars of salt…
Click to expand...
Really now! Is your position there is no first cause and God did not create ex-nihilo?
 
buffalo said:
Really now! Is your position there is no first cause and God did not create ex-nihilo?
Click to expand...
Not at all. God is first cause and creator of the universe. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo needs a bit of refinement (which theologians are engaged in), in that in the course of its doctrinal development it became entangled with the issue of creation in time.

So, if Big Bang cosmology is true – and it seems to be confirmed more and more – the question is whether God created the conditions of the Big Bang (and therefore space-time) ex nihilo – or whether there was an energetic state prior to the Big Bang, of which God was the cause. If the latter, then ex nihilo creation would take its meaning in reference to the very fact that there is something rather than nothing. In other words, I believe creatio ex nihilo refers not specifically to the moment of the Big Bang, but to the creation of the conditions that made the Big Bang possible, conditions which are of course ontologically dependent upon the eternal Godhead.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Not at all. God is first cause and creator of the universe. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo needs a bit of refinement (which theologians are engaged in), in that in the course of its doctrinal development it became entangled with the issue of creation in time.

So, if Big Bang cosmology is true – and it seems to be confirmed more and more – the question is whether God created the conditions of the Big Bang (and therefore space-time) ex nihilo – or whether there was an energetic state prior to the Big Bang, of which God was the cause. If the latter, then ex nihilo creation would take its meaning in reference to the very fact that there is something rather than nothing. In other words, I believe creatio ex nihilo refers not specifically to the moment of the Big Bang, but to the creation of the conditions that made the Big Bang possible, conditions which are of course ontologically dependent upon the eternal Godhead.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Exactly what is your game? Several posts exhibit animosity and mocking, then when challenged your post takes a different tone.

Anyone else notice this pattern?
 
StAnastasia said:
No more speculative than talking snakes, forbidden fruits, magical floods, self-cleansing arks, 30 million species on one boat, female pillars of salt…
Click to expand...
Sorry Ed – that was too snarky. My concern is that theology needs to be in dialogue with the science of the twenty-first rather than the nineteenth century. I think Ilia Delio, John Haught, Archbishop Josef Zycinski and others are seriously grappling with the new science; Cardinal Schoenborn is grappling with the science of 1850.

My concern is not some cynical aggiornamento to retain bodies in pews; it is that if we want a living faith we interpret it according to our new worldview. Thomas Aquinas shared this concern in the thirteenth century.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Sorry Ed – that was too snarky. My concern is that theology needs to be in dialogue with the science of the twenty-first rather than the nineteenth century. I think Ilia Delio, John Haught, Archbishop Josef Zycinski and others are seriously grappling with the new science; Cardinal Schoenborn is grappling with the science of 1850.

My concern is not some cynical aggiornamento to retain bodies in pews; it is that if we want a living faith we interpret it according to our new worldview. Thomas Aquinas shared this concern in the thirteenth century.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
John Haught was just censured by the Vatican.
 
buffalo said:
Exactly what is your game? Several posts exhibit animosity and mocking, then when challenged your post takes a different tone.

Anyone else notice this pattern?
Click to expand...
Indeed. A smug tone, trolling for emotional responses (the Book of Genesis is a great myth – as good as The Hobbit maybe), condescending and patronizing (“if you’re spiritually masochistic, that’s great!”) – not to mention the contradictions, ambiguity and contempt for perennial Catholic teaching …

… pretty straight-foward attention-getting devices – you’re right to ask what his game is.
 
The_Barbarian said:
\

No, evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a 20th century scientific theory, which incorporates elements of Darwin’s theory, Genetics, and molecular biology.
Click to expand...
How are we using the term evolution? When you say evolution is a natural phenomenon–that makes it sound as observable and proven rather than a theory–are we equating natural selection and evolution?
thanks
 
StAnastasia said:
Really? Why?
Click to expand...
Vatican congregation orders Jesuit theologian to stop teaching and publishing

New York, Jan 6, 2009 / 11:05 pm (CNA).- The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ordered the American Jesuit theologian Fr. Roger Haight to stop teaching and publishing on theological matters. The academic’s work has been criticized for undermining Catholic teaching on the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the importance of the Church, and issues related to Salvation.
Vatican expert John L. Allen, Jr., writing for the National Catholic Reporter, said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) communicated these restrictions to the Jesuits in spring 2008. Jesuit leaders reportedly had consulted the late theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles in the matter.
Jesuit spokesman Father Jose de Vera confirmed the restrictions, but said a “final resolution” has not been reached in the case.
“The process continues,” Father de Vera said, according to John Allen.
In a 2005 notification, the CDF cited “serious doctrinal errors” in Father Haight’s 2000 book “Jesus: Symbol of God.” The Congregation said that Father Haight, a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, should be barred from teaching Catholic theology.

more…
 
MarkInOregon said:
How are we using the term evolution? When you say evolution is a natural phenomenon–that makes it sound as observable and proven rather than a theory–are we equating natural selection and evolution?
thanks
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s a classic word-game that we see quite often.

The word “evolution” is used interchangeably (and deceitfully) as both a natural process and a theory, without explaining which is which. When used as a theory evolution is claimed to be the one explanation for all of the development of nature. When challenged, the definitions shift.
 
buffalo said:
Vatican congregation orders Jesuit theologian to stop teaching and publishing

New York, Jan 6, 2009 / 11:05 pm (CNA).- The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ordered the American Jesuit theologian Fr. Roger Haight to stop teaching and publishing on theological matters. The academic’s work has been criticized for undermining Catholic teaching on the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the importance of the Church, and issues related to Salvation.
Click to expand...
That is good news, but sadly it’s not what I was hoping for since it’s Roger Haight and not John Haught. But with a little more patience, we’ll see more good things ahead. God bless Pope Benedict.
 
StAnastasia said:
Sorry Ed – that was too snarky. My concern is that theology needs to be in dialogue with the science of the twenty-first rather than the nineteenth century. I think Ilia Delio, John Haught, Archbishop Josef Zycinski and others are seriously grappling with the new science; Cardinal Schoenborn is grappling with the science of 1850.

My concern is not some cynical aggiornamento to retain bodies in pews; it is that if we want a living faith we interpret it according to our new worldview. Thomas Aquinas shared this concern in the thirteenth century.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
“in dialogue with the science of the twenty-first”?

“bodies in pews”? The Church is not in the job of telling people what they want to hear but telling them the truth about Jesus Christ. The Bible is not specific about some things but is clear that all things were created by God and nothing was created without Him. Science, as practiced today, excludes God. The journal Nature tells us most leading scientists reject God.

I work in the media. The current worldview being promoted across all platforms is this: profanity, prostitution, fornication, adultery, nihilism, euthenasia and the killing of embryonic human life. And multiple conjugal partners is on the horizon. Britney in her underwear on the cover of People… And a close friend of mine said to me, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in evolution.” And later, “You know, the cell is just too complex.”

We are without excuse. God created everything and His creation knows it. Scientists are the ones saying Man has overthrown God. With our new, new knowledge, we will become gods.

That is why it is so important to remember the lie told to Eve: “Ye shall be as gods.”

By ignoring this, the idolatry of the mind of man begins. But being imperfect and sinful, it will not end well.

Peace,
Ed
 
MarkInOregon said:
How are we using the term evolution? When you say evolution is a natural phenomenon–that makes it sound as observable and proven rather than a theory–are we equating natural selection and evolution?
thanks
Click to expand...
Natural selection is part of evolution – it’s what operates on genetic mutations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top