Myths and fairy tales ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
“Taken in” is your expression, not mine. St. Paul was not a biologist or a geneticist. Naturally his theology presupposed the scientific worldview of his time. He had no way of knowing the historical depth of human descent from hominid ancestors over millions of years.
Click to expand...
So, you’re saying that what St. Paul says in the Letter to the Romans is wrong? He says sin entered the world through one man - Adam. Is that right or wrong?
 
]Originally Posted by Mea Culpa
Satan is not a concept and he’s not a theory - he’s a reality. Satan has been active in human affairs from the beginning (Genesis ch. 3) and, looking around us at the world today, it’s obvious that he’s very active in the world today.

Mea Culpa - Amen to your post above. CCC #391 says the following.

Quote:
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268 ]

The catechism here speaks of something more than a “concept”.]
Get a grip! I talking of evolution of a dogma or doctine, maybe concept is not a good choice of words but that does not mean that the “dogma” didn’t evolve.IT DID. If you don’t believe that some dogmas evolve that you better start looking at a lot of other dogmas which have evolved.Including the Immaculate Conception.
 
Mea_Culpa said:
So, you’re saying that what St. Paul says in the Letter to the Romans is wrong? He says sin entered the world through one man - Adam. Is that right or wrong?
Click to expand...
btw St.Paul,it seems,got his info from the creator of biologists and biology and genetics -twinc
 
ricmat said:
Robin, you hit the nail on the head with your response above.
The catechism here speaks of something more than a “concept”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Crowley
If “souls are immediately created by God”, yet we are supposed to have “evolved”, then where does “sin” come from?

[%between%](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/387.htm’)😉
Click to expand...
Hi
If it is a survival of the fittest theory which Got us here, The laws written with a pen ought not matter, we’d all be living Gen 6, when men of renown took what they wanted, and wickedness ruled… sin is an appetite, which becomes an addiction left unchecked.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

God bless,
John:highprayer:
 
StAnastasia said:
“Taken in” is your expression, not mine. St. Paul was not a biologist or a geneticist. Naturally his theology presupposed the scientific worldview of his time. He had no way of knowing the historical depth of human descent from hominid ancestors over millions of years.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Are you saying evolution wasn't considered back then? poppycock!
You just like digging yourself in a deeper hole.
Your not sounding like much of a theologian with that kind of statement?

What of Aristotle 350 b.c.?
To Aristotle we can attribute the basis for an idea often called “The Great Chain of Being.” Other names for the same idea are "Ladder of Life" and “Scala Naturae.” This was a try at the development of a kind of classification, or taxonomy. Aristotle was attempting to make sense of the relationships among living things.
Click to expand...
His idea was that all species could be placed in order, from the “lowest” to the “highest,” with worms on the bottom and you-know-who on the top. In Aristotle’s view, the universe was ultimately perfect, and that meant that the Great Chain was also perfect. That meant that there were no empty links in the chain, and no link was represented by more than one species.
Click to expand...
Paul was a Pharisee of pharisees, He was fully aawre of Greek thinking and philosophy in His time.

Then again, Paul only met Jesus Christ, the author of life, personally (Acts 9:3 ff), was taken up to to the third heaven? ( see 2Cor 12).
Maybe even Christ/ and the Holy Spirit, thought/think biological evolution unimportant. Take John the Apostle, seeing heavenly Temple, our future, somehow God forgot to enlighten him about our humble beginning biologically.

God bless,
John
 
twinc said:
btw St.Paul,it seems,got his info from the creator of biologists and biology and genetics -twinc
Click to expand...
Paul did not get his scientific knowledge from that source, or else he misunderstood it.
 
So, when St. Paul says “one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Romans 5:18), is he right or wrong?
 
John_oxios said:
Are you saying evolution wasn’t considered back then? poppycock! What of Aristotle 350 b.c.? God bless, John
Click to expand...
Evolution in the sense of descent from a common ancestor was not proposed by Aristotle. Augustine seems to have had a developmental interpretation of Genesis, but in the sense of living beings developing from logikoi spermatikoi, or rationes seminales.
 
StAnastasia said:
Symbolically he is right.
Click to expand...
The whole sentence from Romans 5:18 is “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

St. Paul is speaking of Adam’s trespass and Jesus’ death and resurrection as parallel events (“Then as … so …”). So, if you’re saying St. Paul is speaking symbolically about Adam’s trespass, he must also be speaking symbolically about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

You’re not saying that Jesus’s death and resurrection weren’t real events, are you?
 
twinc said:
not at all - the Bible is totally inerrant in all its parts,- this is required acceptance by all Catholics - twinc
Click to expand...
Dei Verbum Ch. 3 tells us:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Click to expand...
Some people like to quibble about the phrase “for the sake of salvation” - but aren’t knowledge of original sin, and of Jesus redeeming mankind on the cross central to our salvation - so Scripture must be without error in teaching about those things.
 
juliamajor said:
The catechism here speaks of something more than a “concept”.]
Get a grip! I talking of evolution of a dogma or doctine, maybe concept is not a good choice of words but that does not mean that the “dogma” didn’t evolve.IT DID. If you don’t believe that some dogmas evolve that you better start looking at a lot of other dogmas which have evolved.Including the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
Hi Julia,
1st They don’t evolve, they’re revelations of God.
2nd the Church never really defined a Doctrine or Dogma til it was outwardly challenged; Someone would say what do we mean by '______ '. Whether it was Christ presence in the Eucharist (9th to 11th Century), which was settled by T.Aquinas and the term Transubstantiation, whether it was does the Spirit proceed from the Father or the Son, 4th century, The Church always goes back to what the Apostles taught. For centuries and still to today people in the west want to know what, how and why, whereas in the East they accept the mysteries of God as just that mysteries.

God bless,
John :highprayer:
 
StAnastasia said:
Paul did not get his scientific knowledge from that source, or else he misunderstood it.
Click to expand...
Hello,
Code: 
        You got to be kidding?  Anything goes to fit the your story, eh?   He may have not gotten his philosophy teachings directly from Anaximander, Pythagorus or Aristotle themselves. I'll bet on it that his was aware of their teachings.
He may have not gotten his tent making knowledge from Abraham, but he earned a living doing it!!

The problem with Evolution, and ‘Jehovah Witneses,’ ‘7th day Adventists’ is their willing to bend anything to hold to their truths. And I’ll put all three in the same category. AS UNBELIEVABLE!

God bless,

John :highprayer:
 
twinc said:
not at all - the Bible is totally inerrant in all its parts,- this is required acceptance by all Catholics - twinc
Click to expand...
No, that’s a Protestant notion you’ve brought with you across the Tiber.
 
John_oxios said:
He may have not gotten his philosophy teachings directly from Anaximander, Pythagorus or Aristotle themselves. I’ll bet on it that his was aware of their teachings.
Click to expand...
John Oxios, Anaximander, Pythagoras and Aristotle knew nothing of genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, or paleontology. Neither did Saint Paul.
 
edwest2 said:
That statement is incorrect. See, Adam and Eve: Real People, here: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.aspPeace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Sorry Ed, your claim is incoherent.

“As the Catechism puts it, 'Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God.”

Genetic science contradicts the sacred mythology of a single breeding pair named “Adam” and “Eve”. Either we throw out the ongoing work of genetic science in favor of an ancient symbolic story – thereby further eroding the credibility of religion in a world investigated by science, or we adjust our symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Most Catholics have no problem with the latter theological course.

StAnastasia
 
When animals survive a life threatening situation the experience becomes hardwired into the memory according to the intensity of the experience of fear. The more their life was threatened the more the memory of the particular environment that contained the threat becomes involuntarilly imposed on current experiences. This function of memory provides an automatic recognition of similarity to the threatening environment so the threat can be avoided or responded to with the sensitivity required for surviving another encounter.

The more complex the species the more complex is this function of memory.

It follows that this function of memory would even be more developed in man if man were of an order common to all others albeit the most complex to date.

On the contrary. This function of memory disorders human cognition. Memory of past events involuntarilly imposed on current reality hinders human life from functioning successfully. It’s called Post Traumatic Stress disorder, Dissociated Identity disorder, Bipolar disorder etc.

Original sin and the consequences that resulted as described in the Biblical account of our genesis offers reason for why an involuntary mechanism of memory that is a function of intelligence in other animals would be unnatural and the cause of disorder in the human animal.
 
StAnastasia said:
John Oxios, Anaximander, Pythagoras and Aristotle knew nothing of genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, or paleontology. Neither did Saint Paul.
Click to expand...
Dei verbum, ch. 3: “the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

The letters of St. Paul included in the New Testament have God as their author. Do you think God knows about genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, or paleontology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top