Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church neither denies the theory of evolution nor accepts it. For all we know, God could have just !boom! created humans or had them evolve. But I do know this, Jesus came and died for HUMANKIND, not monkeys. And since I’m a human, that’s perfect for me!!!
The Church neither denies the theory of gravity nor accepts it. The Church need not endorse scientific theories. However, that the Church is very interested in the theory of evolution is testified to by the conference in Rome last March – Evoluzione: fatti e teorie", sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
 
It’s either all fairy tale or it’s all real (excepting parables). I pity the fool who claims the entire Bible is a bunch of fairy tales.
This strikes me as the all-or-nothing literalism of a Protestant fundamentalist-turned Catholic.
 
You miss the point. There is no single portrayal of God in the Bible, but rather many different perspectives from a people evolving over centuries in their understanding of God.
No, you miss my point. Why is it you pick and choose the parts of the bible that you feel make god out to be nice.

Why do you dismiss the parts where god condones rape and genocide, how do you know there not the accurate parts?
 
No, you miss my point. Why is it you pick and choose the parts of the bible that you feel make god out to be nice.

Why do you dismiss the parts where god condones rape and genocide, how do you know there not the accurate parts?
Canaanites sacrificed their children in fire (to their gods), ate human flesh, and were very sexually immoral. So what would you have done if you were God? Would you have allowed such a people to exist (take into consideration they had time to repent of their actions as they were aware of the one true God)?

“This is not to say that Israel was permitted or even ordered to treat all other nations the same way, for Deuteronomy 20:10-15 odrders them to offer conditions of peace rather than extermination to all otehrs. However, the verses that follow, namely 16-18, disallowed the same offer to be given to Canaan. In fact, the Hebrew wars with other nations (except Canaan) were designed to be only in self-defense.”

“Why then were the Canaanites singled out for such severe treatment? They were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted (Deut. 20:16-18). When a people starts to burn their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vice (Lev. 18:23, 24, 20:3), the land itself begins to “vomit” them out as the body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18:25, 27-30). Thus, “objection to the fate of these nations … is really an objection to the highest manifestation of the grace of God.” Green likens this action on God’s part, not to doing evil that good may come (though that does seem often to be God’s methodology: the ends justify the means), but doing good in spite of certain evil consequences, just as a surgeon does not refrain from amputating a gangrenous leg even though in so doing he cannot help cutting off much healthy flesh.”

"But there is more. Green observes that “…We may object to God’s doing immediately and personally what we do not object to his doing mediately, through providence. Now nothing is more certain than that providence is administered on the principle that individuals share in the life of the family and of the nation to which they belong; and that, consequently it is right that they should participate in its punishments as in its rewards…Though many innocent persons could not but suffer, it was right, because of the relation in which they stood to the guilty, that this should be so.”

"One more observation must be made here. Every forcast or prophesy of doom, like any prophetic word about the future except those few promises connected with the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants (which are unconditional and dependant solely on God’s work of fulfillment), had a suppressed “unless” attached to them. At that moment that nation turns from its evil way and repents then at that time the Lord would relent and cease to bring the threatened harm (cf. Jer. 18:7-10). Thus Canaan had, as it were, a final forty-year countdown as they heard of the events in Egypt, at the crossing of the Reed Sea, and what happened to the kings who opposed Israel along the way. We know that they were aware of such events, for Rahab confessed that these same events had terrorized her city of Jericho and that she, as a result, had placed her faith in the God of the Hebrews (Josh. 2:10-14). Thus God waited for the “cup of iniquity” to fill up – and fill up it did without any change in spite of the marvelous signs given so that the nations, along with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, “might know that he was the Lord.”

“The destruction of the Canaanites was on the same principle as the whole world was judged (except for eight persons) in the Deluge or the five cities of the plain (including Sodom and Gomorrah), or Pharaoh’s army. Usually those who object to these events are those who deny any compatibility of the doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked with the mercy and love of God.”

“God’s character and the acts he requires are fully consistent with everything that both testaments would lead us to expect in our God. The problem usually centers in a deficiency in our view of things and our ability to properly define terms or grasp the whole of a subject.”

theology.edu/canaan.htm
 
No, you miss my point. Why is it you pick and choose the parts of the bible that you feel make god out to be nice. Why do you dismiss the parts where god condones rape and genocide, how do you know there not the accurate parts?
I am not a biblical literalist, so I’m not picking and choosing. I understand the bible to be the “journal” of a people’s developing consciousness about God and their relationship to Him/Her. Naturally, the “God” portrayed in earlier accounts will be variously paternal, tribal, petty, and punitive, like the God pictured by young children. In fact, there are indications in some early strata of the Psalms that the Hebrews were “henotheists” – there are multiple gods, but our is superior to yours.

As the Hebrew experience deepened though conquest, exile, and survival at the will of the major Ancient Near Eastern powers, the Hebrew conception of God was deepened and broadened correspondingly. Likewise their ethic was broadened, and has continued to broadened along with that of Christianity.

StAnastasia
 
The Bible is not a book of science, and the origin of life is not subject to scientific study. Evolutionists seem to be able to accept the first part of this statement, but not the later.

To think that the origin of life can be examined by science PRESUPPOSES that natural forces could have been responsible. Now science is not based on assumptions. This shows that Evolution is not science, it is speculation disguised as science.

The Theory of Gravity is based on observation. Evolution is based on speculation. Calling variation within species “micro evolution”, and then saying that Evolution has been observed illustrates the unethical actions of some Evolution believers.
 
]The Theory of Gravity is based on observation. Evolution is based on speculation. Calling variation within species “micro evolution”, and then saying that Evolution has been observed illustrates the unethical actions of some Evolution believers.
Abu, you need to learn some science. Both evolution and gravity are theories, and both are supported be evidence.
 
The Bible is not a book of science, and the origin of life is not subject to scientific study. Evolutionists seem to be able to accept the first part of this statement, but not the later.

To think that the origin of life can be examined by science PRESUPPOSES that natural forces could have been responsible. Now science is not based on assumptions. This shows that Evolution is not science, it is speculation disguised as science.

The Theory of Gravity is based on observation. Evolution is based on speculation. Calling variation within species “micro evolution”, and then saying that Evolution has been observed illustrates the unethical actions of some Evolution believers.
This makes my head hurt.
 
I am not a biblical literalist, so I’m not picking and choosing. I understand the bible to be the “journal” of a people’s developing consciousness about God and their relationship to Him/Her. Naturally, the “God” portrayed in earlier accounts will be variously paternal, tribal, petty, and punitive, like the God pictured by young children. In fact, there are indications in some early strata of the Psalms that the Hebrews were “henotheists” – there are multiple gods, but our is superior to yours.

As the Hebrew experience deepened though conquest, exile, and survival at the will of the major Ancient Near Eastern powers, the Hebrew conception of God was deepened and broadened correspondingly. Likewise their ethic was broadened, and has continued to broadened along with that of Christianity.

StAnastasia
“I am not a biblical literalist”

but you do take some of the bible stories literally?
 
“I am not a biblical literalist” but you do take some of the bible stories literally?
I read them literarily. The Hebrews were diverse Semitic peoples living in what would become the Roman province of Palestine. They cemented their “national” identity through their gradually assembled literary history depicted in the Hebrew Bible. Their remarkable experience of God was articulated through their salvation history, their religious poetry, and their prophetic tradition.

Jesus really existed; he attracted and gathered disciples, he had a career of itinerant ministry throughout Galilee, his teaching and actions provoked the Jewish authorities who called upon the power of Rome to deal with him. I believe his followers had genuine experiences of Jesus following his death. The Christian community articulated this cumulative experience through liturgical practice and theological reflection.

StAnastasia
 
How so? All i am asking is if the bible is an accurate representation of the character of god? It seems StAnastasia does not believe so.

This means when it comes to the character of god, the bible got it wrong.

I would like to know what this is based on. Seems a little strange to me, as the bible is the only “source” (and i use that term loosely) of infromation on the character of god.

Seems to me StAnastasia is (quite rightly) having problems dealing with the immorality of god, as portrayed by the bible.
StA is a modernist and her musings are not Catholic belief or teaching.
 
“I am not a biblical literalist”

but you do take some of the bible stories literally?
Catholic do not read the Bible literally. But some of it is literally true.

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109
In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
[112](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/112.htm’)😉 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/113.htm’)😉 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
[114](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/114.htm’)😉 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
How so? All i am asking is if the bible is an accurate representation of the character of god? It seems StAnastasia does not believe so. This means when it comes to the character of god, the bible got it wrong. I would like to know what this is based on. Seems a little strange to me, as the bible is the only “source” (and i use that term loosely) of infromation on the character of god. Seems to me StAnastasia is (quite rightly) having problems dealing with the immorality of god, as portrayed by the bible.
Charles Darwin, I thought I had responded to this post, but perhaps not. I think you’re looking at this backwards. Rather than speaking of the Bible as “the only “source” of information on the character of god,” why not see the Bible as the testimony of one people to their understanding of reality and its divine source? The Bible was written down and edited and reworked over many centuries by human beings whom we believe were inspired. Inspiration does not mean they were writing with automatic quills what God was dictating; inspiration means that as human beings they were led by the Spirit to write about the God-human relationship through their own human experience and in light of their own human categories.

Thus, when the scripture writers talk about a six-day creation, a global flood, the sun standing still, or about God commanding the Israelites to burn and slaughter little children, they were not engaging in automatic writing down of the ramblings of a scientifically ignorant and sadistic “God.” Rather, they were expressing in poetic form some dimensions of what they regarded – developmentally over the centuries – as the essence of the God–human-world relationship.

The odd episode of Abraham and Isaac should not be read as God’s approbation of child sacrifice (that would be a rather horrific image of fatherly love!). Rather, it reflects the centrality of covenant expressed in the language of a people who until recently had engaged in such sacrifice or witnessed it among their neighbors. More later – I’ve got to get back to writing.

StAnastasia who is termed a “Modernist”
 
Correct - pull the “teeth” out of Catholic belief and teaching that are “painful”, aka, heresy - to cleave away.
At least the rotten teeth of geocentrism, hexaemeral creation, flood geology, approbation of child sacrifice…
 
Charles Darwin, I thought I had responded to this post, but perhaps not. I think you’re looking at this backwards. Rather than speaking of the Bible as “the only “source” of information on the character of god,” why not see the Bible as the testimony of one people to their understanding of reality and its divine source? The Bible was written down and edited and reworked over many centuries by human beings whom we believe were inspired. Inspiration does not mean they were writing with automatic quills what God was dictating; inspiration means that as human beings they were led by the Spirit to write about the God-human relationship through their own human experience and in light of their own human categories.

Thus, when the scripture writers talk about a six-day creation, a global flood, the sun standing still, or about God commanding the Israelites to burn and slaughter little children, they were not engaging in automatic writing down of the ramblings of a scientifically ignorant and sadistic “God.” Rather, they were expressing in poetic form some dimensions of what they regarded – developmentally over the centuries – as the essence of the God–human-world relationship.

The odd episode of Abraham and Isaac should not be read as God’s approbation of child sacrifice (that would be a rather horrific image of fatherly love!). Rather, it reflects the centrality of covenant expressed in the language of a people who until recently had engaged in such sacrifice or witnessed it among their neighbors. More later – I’ve got to get back to writing.

StAnastasia who is termed a “Modernist”
Im just trying to get an understanding of what you believe and why. So would i be correcting saying that you wouldn’t hold to any of the bible being literal? For example mary being a virgin?
 
At least the rotten teeth of geocentrism, hexaemeral creation, flood geology, approbation of child sacrifice…
Well this is kinda my point, what are the grounds for deciding they are rotten? They are just as important teachings as any other part of the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top