Polygenism and evolution

[garysibio]

Where in Genesis is that mentioned?

Peace

Tim

In Gen 1:28, God commands Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the Earth. If they had not done so, it would have been a sin. However, their sin was to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil therefore they must have obeyed God in this regard. Two kids does not constitute filling the Earth.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

In Gen 1:28, God commands Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the Earth. If they had not done so, it would have been a sin. However, their sin was to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil therefore they must have obeyed God in this regard. Two kids does not constitute filling the Earth.

Gary

So, it isn’t in scripture. It is in your interpretation of scripture.

They did, by the way, be fruitful and multiply. Only they did so after the Abel/Cain incident.

Peace

Tim

 

[SimonArizona]

"Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created in statu viae ‘in a state of journeying’ toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it" -Catechism of the Catholic Church

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
—Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1859

 

[garysibio]

I gave you two reasons.The Church does not teach that the creation story in Genesis has to be taken literally. Why not? I answered your question, now please do the same for me.I don’t agree with your answers, so they are not convincing to me.

Peace

Tim

My question was what is it about the text that says that Gen 1 & 2 were not meant to be taken literally and, if they are not to be taken literally, what about the rest of Genesis. If Gen 1 & 2 are figurative, why not Gen 50?

I saw no answer to these questions.

As far as why the Church does not mandate a literal view, the point I’m trying to make is that the Church does not always make every truth binding upon believers. But I’m not saying your opinion is heretical, only that it is wrong. Beyond that I don’t know why the Church has not spoken on this issue. There are plenty of issues that the Church has not ruled dogmatically on yet are, nonetheless, true.

Gary

 

[SimonArizona]

My question was what is it about the text that says that Gen 1 & 2 were not meant to be taken literally and, if they are not to be taken literally, what about the rest of Genesis. If Gen 1 & 2 are figurative, why not Gen 50?

I saw no answer to these questions.

As far as why the Church does not mandate a literal view, the point I’m trying to make is that the Church does not always make every truth binding upon believers. But I’m not saying your opinion is heretical, only that it is wrong. Beyond that I don’t know why the Church has not spoken on this issue. There are plenty of issues that the Church has not ruled dogmatically on yet are, nonetheless, true.

Gary

According to Catholic apologist and author Frank Sheed, the story of Genesis began with man and woman in the Garden. After 500 years, the first 5 books were written and needed a grand opening. A poet decided to write the opening which we call Genesis 1. The “creation account” didn’t exist until 500 years after the first 5 books were already written. Thats the history of Genesis, again according to Frank Sheed.

 

[Orogeny]

My question was what is it about the text that says that Gen 1 & 2 were not meant to be taken literally and, if they are not to be taken literally, what about the rest of Genesis. If Gen 1 & 2 are figurative, why not Gen 50?

Actually, I used Gen 1, Gen 3 and Gen 4 in my reply. Day before night (Gen 1) and Cain’s wife (Gen 3 and Gen 4).

Also, the different order of events in Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You claim that this view is a valid interpretation of Genesis but it is not. Someone starting with only the book of Genesis would never have arrived at what you have speculated.

Gary, I am not against what you are exploring – but I think your argument needs deeper foundations. A public opinion sampling does not always accurately reflect the body of knowledge about a subject.

eg: In the first place, why start “only” with the book of Genesis? It was written in a historical background which we have evidence about – and which allows us to recognize political undertones in its apologetic against other religions which it views as corrupt. These apologetics, though, often take the form of mocking the other religions choice of images and language. eg: The stars are part of a calendar, rather than being God’s in their own rite, or fire altars of sacrifice in the heavens as some Greeks seem to suggest.

What you have done is start with a set of ideas and are trying to make Genesis say what you already believe to be true. That is not how biblical interpretation works.

– actually, however one starts reading scripture – biblical interpretation, like science, generally adheres to the hypotheses and theory pattern of growth in understanding.
Those who read in an interpretation (which how else does one grasp the text?) are either arrogant or humble.
The humble ones check their work in hopes of eliminating personal errors…others just shove an ill fitting interpretation (secular or religious) into the foray to bicker.

I don’t believe that every passage of Scripture has to be taken literally but, in another thread on the evolution-intelligent design-creationism debate, I asked those who reject Gen 1-2 as literal what it is about the text that indicates it was not to be taken at face value and where was there anything in the text that separated the creation account from Noah and Abraham that would say that, starting now, we are speaking literally. No one was able to give me an answer. To put it another way, if I reject a six-day creation, how can I logically accept the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph along with the others?

Gary

Quite easily, by noting the context in which statements are made. In many modern commentaries fictional (or rather) parody is used politically to convey both truths and ridicule – these Genre’s presume, however, that the audience shares a common experience of how the various “factions” attempt to “prove” their point. Ignorance of history is ignorance of important telltale signs of what authors mean by their statements.

Yankee doodle went to town…

– Some speculation posted (not singling you out) needs a bit of thoughtful analysis to show weaknesses.

Glad to meet you.
–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First we need to decide what makes a “human” and what makes an “almost, but not quite yet human”. The difference is presumably the presence (or not) of a human soul.

Hmmm … form a hypothesis, and hope to discover? what is human? perhaps?

A physically human large brained upright walking ape without a soul is not fully human, it may be human physically with human-compatible DNA, but is not human spiritually since it does not have a human soul. A physically human large brained upright walking ape with a human soul is human, both physically and spiritually.

I seem to recall that we are 90+ some odd percent identical genetically even with creatures we clearly did not evolve from (at least by present general opinion, eg: monkeys).

So, this is going to be difficult to discover, especially since the expression of Gene’s are uncertain. eg: the supposed Gay gene in identical twins does not express itself in such a way as to show more than a weak correlation…even though if it were truly and only a “genetic” factor, identical twins should always be or not be the same way. (This is known to be false.)

The nature vs. nurture issues and epigenetics mean that we do not know how physical human nature as such is transmitted. Genetics is one component we are certain of with respect to the body – so, a reasonable hypothesis would include it… Nice start.

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet.

Ok, but they do have souls – just not human ones. All animals do, they are mortal souls tied to physical breath and body which die with the body of the animal. So we have lowly huma, with a non-immortal soul. The slime of the earth…

God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all.

Whoops, I think you went to fast for me.
Eve is physically different from Adam, so she can’t be a “clone” exactly. If she is from a set of identical twins, something different must occur with respect to her than does Adam.

Eve is part of Adam… and I will accept for hypothesis that (though unspecified how) – that an identical twin manages not to express the masculinity of its original. (This is an unexplored scientific are for me…)

We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma.

Yes, we have Hypothetical – Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls.

And human souls, not just animal souls. OK, Fine.

The children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma.

Why is this necessary? It may be desirable, but what is the necessity? eg: as an improbable idea, I said “rape” for an animal might force itself sexually on another species…
So, the assumption being made – improbable – is that there were no extra bodily mutations required to allow a human to become integral with its body.

That is issue #1.

Issue #2 is why a creature which has made the leap from mere sensory processing and computing to intellect and philosophical (even if weak) grasp of God would desire to mate with other creatures which have no such inclination.

Eg:Adam, in the scriptures, was – after all, offered all kinds of animal help mates – but none of them worked as a mate for him. Love bonded mates have peculiar needs.

So, what advantage is there, evolutionarily, for mating with something which is clearly different from ones self?
In animals, such a thing usually occurs because of chemical signals and instincts are close enough to cause the happening – eg: a rabbit breeding a cat and producing a cabbit – which dies from major malformations.

But in a human, (by definition) they would be able to think what they were doing – unlike a “huma”.

I, mean, I know there have been one or two cases in the millions of human beings I know of, that the perversion being spoken of has occurred – eg: a woman, for show, making a video of herself and an animal doing “it”. But in all that I have seen – Humans (and even animals) don’t generally mate things which aren’t like themselves.

Why would this be, if as Darwin asserts, evolution is driven by “survival” – for offspring born of any other animal would seem to increase (not decrease) the odds of having offspring… which is the whole goal of evolution…

So, I think, although “possible” presuming the human soul-licitation – does not affect genetics or nurture factors of humanity (very unlikely given the meaning of soul “in-forming” the body) – but this seems to contradict the way nature normally functions. But, suspending disbelief…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life.

OK. possible. no matter how unlikely.

God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul.

That is a problem in and of itself. Since genetics is assumed as one factor which defines human vs. huma – it is also possible that purely animal genetics (still compatible) could displace a required genetic human factor, and that non-human offspring would also likely result. The human changes, could in effect become “recessive”.

Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Presuming the critical human genetic information can’t be displaced by any other animal genetic information … yes.
But now, we don’t know if bodily defective human beings – compatibly human genetically – are in fact “human” – or whether they are mere animal throwbacks…

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

Now, since they share all the identical bodily apparatus, (huma) there is no reason that huma would become extinct at all. There is no evolutionary difference in the body!
And therefore, the fittest has nothing to do with random mutations…in this critical case. eg: man clearly did not evolve this final step.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

And, one can take rabbit young and line breed them back to their parents. Even though the genetic population is not that diverse (one parent set) — proper breeding procedures will produce a population with genetic diversity, for some genes will be deleted in certain pairings, and others will be forced into recessiveness, and yet others will be expressed. Slow mutuations occur (due to nurture) which causes the genetics to slowly diversify over time.

The problem is, though, religiously – we hold the human beings as a singular family. And recessive genes or mutations do not affect the belief of the Catholic Church in the humanity of any human offspring.

This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis.

yes, one with big theological problems.

The Fall would have occurred between the creation of Adam and Eve and the conception of their first child.

But there could be no fall unless the original human body was superior to those which followed. Why then did they back-breed to a mere animal? De-volution?

On the basis of what you have said, should one take the genetics of a human and replace one part at a time. So that a human is always born, but with small modifications to the genetics – (presuming this is possible) – could it ever be possible to turn man back into an animal? eg: if his genetics were slowly mutated into that of a cow… etc.

Do you see my problem here?

When the pope says it is in “no wise” apparent, I don’t think he was referring to mere arrangements of possibility. I think he is referring to a genuine lack of knowledge about what constitutes human.

The brain is a chalk board that the spirit reads and writes to – but the brain is NOT by itself the spirit of man.

In God we Live and move and have are being – but God is not the physical universe.

I enjoyed the speculations…

 

[garysibio]

So, it isn’t in scripture. It is in your interpretation of scripture.

They did, by the way, be fruitful and multiply. Only they did so after the Abel/Cain incident.

Peace

Tim

Evidence please.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Actually, I used Gen 1, Gen 3 and Gen 4 in my reply. Day before night (Gen 1) and Cain’s wife (Gen 3 and Gen 4).

Also, the different order of events in Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Peace

Tim

I believe I showed how your objections were invalid but, even if they were valid, they do not address the second part of my question: What about the rest of Genesis? If the beginning is not to be taken literally, how can we say the end is to be taken literally? What is it about the text of Genesis that says it’s figurative up to this point but literal afterwards?

Or do you reject Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the others as historical figures who went through the events as described?

Gary

 

[SimonArizona]

I believe I showed how your objections were invalid but, even if they were valid, they do not address the second part of my question: What about the rest of Genesis? If the beginning is not to be taken literally, how can we say the end is to be taken literally? What is it about the text of Genesis that says it’s figurative up to this point but literal afterwards?

Or do you reject Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the others as historical figures who went through the events as described?

Gary

My answer was inadequate for you?

According to Catholic apologist and author Frank Sheed, the story of Genesis began with man and woman in the Garden. After 500 years, the first 5 books (torah) were written and needed a grand opening. A poet decided to write the opening which we call Genesis 1. The “creation account” didn’t exist until 500 years after the first 5 books were already written. Thats the history of Genesis, again according to Frank Sheed.

 

[buffalo]

According to Catholic apologist and author Frank Sheed, the story of Genesis began with man and woman in the Garden. After 500 years, the first 5 books were written and needed a grand opening. A poet decided to write the opening which we call Genesis 1. The “creation account” didn’t exist until 500 years after the first 5 books were already written. Thats the history of Genesis, again according to Frank Sheed.

Here is something that shows different:

The Toledoths of Genesis

…
This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.

 

[William_inquire]

Why not? What specific part of my scenario is not is accordance with any interpretation of Genesis? While it may not agree with your interpretation of Genesis, I did not claim that it was consistent with all interpretations of Genesis, only that it was compatible with some of them.

Agreed. I did not start with only Genesis, what I said was “This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis.” (Emphasis added.)

Here are a few:* morning and evening before the sun.

• differing order of creation Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
• absence of a solid dome in the sky with water above it - “firmament”.
• plants (photosynthesis) before the sun.
• neither the Moon nor the Sun are “set in” any firmament.
• land plants before life in the sea.

rossum

If there were semi human parents of Adam and Eve, could it be guaranteed that the semi human parents or the semi human grand parents did not have offspring with either Adam or Eve or their children? Would the children have souls or not? Is there a scientific reason that there couldn’t be other Adams and Eves? Other than the installation of a soul , how much difference would there be between the generations since evolution is so gradual?

 

[rossum]

If there were semi human parents of Adam and Eve, could it be guaranteed that the semi human parents or the semi human grand parents did not have offspring with either Adam or Eve or their children?

It would have been theoretically possible, however if the Church is correct in asserting monogenism, then it did not happen. In my scenario, Adam and Eve only mate with each other - it is their children which mate with the “huma”. This allows all existing humans to be descended from both Adam and Eve, not from just one or the other.

Would the children have souls or not?

That is up to God. He could have witheld a soul from any child that was not descended from both Adam and Eve.

Is there a scientific reason that there couldn’t be other Adams and Eves?

None whatsoever, indeed they are required. The smallest figure I have seen for a human (Homo sapiens) population is 1,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. That is the lowest estimate, the figure was probably closer to 10,000 breeding pairs. How many of them were human and how many huma it is not possible to say - a soul is not detectable in a fossil or in DNA.

Other than the installation of a soul , how much difference would there be between the generations since evolution is so gradual?

Very little difference. On my scenario the huma and humans have compatible DNA so they can produce fertile offspring.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your second paragraph answers your first. You don’t interpret the Bible by trying to make it fit something else. You start with the Bible and see what it has to say.

Psalm 19:1 “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” God made the universe just as much as He made the Bible. To study either is to study the work of God. All I am trying to do is to make God’s work in the Bible fit with God’s work in the world. The correct interpretations of both will be compatible.

Light was also created before the sun. This being the case it’s not unreasonable that God created day and night - whether that refers to a concept or something more substantial - before creating the sun.

How can you define “day” and “night” without the Sun? The Jewish day ends at sunset. How can there be the end of a day if there is no sunset?

Not true. Keep in mind the chapter divisions and verses are not part of the Bible. They were added later. Gen 2:4 starts with “Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created.” That ends the general creation account. The remainder of the verse starts off a section dealing in more detail with the creation of humans. The ancient Hebrews were not idiots. They didn’t believe in two conflicting creation accounts.

I see conflicts. Genesis 1 has animals created before Adam (and presumably Eve). Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals and lastly Eve. Those are two different orders of creation, and a clear sign that these passages are not to be taken literally.

It’s possible that this was the source of the water for Noah’s flood.

And it is possible that it was not. A literal worldwide flood in the last 4,000 years is not possible unless you believe in a Loki/Trickster god who has hidden the evidence and replaced it with false evidence of a very different scenario. As to the “waters above” just do a small calculation. Work out the volume of water needed to flood the entire earth. Now place this mass of water in space a bit further away than the moon (the moon is “set in” the firmament). Calculate the energy released when this mass of water falls to earth. Most of the water would have been superheated steam by the time it reached the surface - Noah and his family would have been parboiled.

Consider this, that dome would have protected the Earth from a lot of solar radiation.

You are wrong here - the sun was “set in” the firmament so it would not have protected the earth at all. Having the sun beyond the firmament is not in accordance with a literal interpretation of scripture.

So what?

Your interpretation of scripture is not in accordance with what we see in the rocks. We have life in the sea billions of years before we have any land plants. Since the correct interpretation of His scripture and the correct interpretation of His creation must agree, you have a problem.

I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying it’s possible and it starts with what Scripture says and not trying to force concepts of near-humans into a text which says nothing about them.

The difficulty is in determining “what scripture says”, as Protestants have noticed. A literal Genesis has both the sun and moon set in a solid dome in the sky. That was standard ANE cosmology, and made sense to the Biblical writers. Trying to take those passages literally now is not sensible. The Catholic Church learned a long time ago that in material matters, science will beat theology every time. The Church is wise enough to avoid getting into a fight that it cannot win; you would do well to follow its example.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

Evidence please.

Gary

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis4.htm

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I believe I showed how your objections were invalid but, even if they were valid, they do not address the second part of my question: What about the rest of Genesis? If the beginning is not to be taken literally, how can we say the end is to be taken literally? What is it about the text of Genesis that says it’s figurative up to this point but literal afterwards?

Or do you reject Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the others as historical figures who went through the events as described?

I have no reason to doubt that those people existed. I have plenty of reason to doubt that Noah existed (or at least that a world-wide flood happened) or that the earth was created as descibed in Gen 1 and Gen 2. That does not negate the theological implications of those stories.

I am not a sola scriptura person. I don’t have to have scripture tell me what is literal/historical in scripture.

Peace

Tim

 

[William_inquire]

I have no reason to doubt that those people existed. I have plenty of reason to doubt that Noah existed (or at least that a world-wide flood happened) or that the earth was created as descibed in Gen 1 and Gen 2. That does not negate the theological implications of those stories.

I am not a sola scriptura person. I don’t have to have scripture tell me what is literal/historical in scripture.

Peace

Tim

Tim try this link

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/jepd1.htm

 

[wildleafblower]

I have plenty of reason to doubt that Noah existed (or at least that a world-wide flood happened) or that the earth was created as descibed in Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim

I think we both know that our planet Earth is older than suggested in Genesis.

I’ve been working on a larger article about this topic of discussion but thought I would share with you at this time some of the information I’ve located through many hours of research. Hope it brings you peace of mind.

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
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

[snip]

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. **
At this point, with Abraham’s call, the story of the blessing begins: it is the beginning of God’s great plan to make humanity one family through the covenant with a new people, chosen by him to be a blessing among all the peoples (cf. Gn 12: 1-3). This divine plan is still being implemented; it culminated in the mystery of Christ. It was then that the “last times” began, in the sense that the plan was fully revealed and brought about in Christ but needs to be accepted by human history, which always remains a history of fidelity on God’s part, but unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us human beings. The Church herself, the depository of the blessing, is holy and made up of sinners, marked by tension between the “already” and the “not yet”. In the fullness of time Jesus Christ came to bring the covenant to completion: he himself, true God and true man, is the Sacrament of God’s fidelity to his plan of salvation for all humanity, for all of us.

The arrival in Bethlehem of the Magi from the East to adore the newborn Messiah is a sign of the manifestation of the universal King to the peoples and to all who seek the truth. It is the beginning of a movement opposed to that of Babel: from confusion to comprehension, from dispersion to reconciliation. Thus, we discern a link between Epiphany and Pentecost: if the Nativity of Christ, who is the Head, is also the Nativity of the Church, his Body, we can see the Magi as the peoples who join the remnant of Israel, foretelling the great sign of the “polyglot Church” that the Holy Spirit carried out 50 days after Easter. The faithful and tenacious love of God which is never lacking in his covenant from generation to generation is the “mystery” of which St Paul speaks in his Letters and in the passage from the Letter to the Ephesians which has just been proclaimed: the Apostle says that this mystery “was made known to me by revelation” (Eph 3: 3).

This “mystery” of God’s fidelity constitutes the hope of history. It is of course opposed by the impulses of division and tyranny that wound humanity due to sin and conflicts of selfishness. The Church in history is at the service of this “mystery” of blessing for all humanity. The Church fully carries out her mission in this mystery of God’s fidelity only when she reflects the light of Christ the Lord within herself and so helps the peoples of the world on their way to peace and authentic progress. Indeed, God’s Word revealed through the Prophet Isaiah still continues to apply: “darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you” (Is 60: 2). What the prophet proclaimed in Jerusalem was to be fulfilled in Christ’s Church: “nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Is 60: 3).

[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

You may also look at this too…
usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/os.shtml
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/os.shtml

I’ll be on the road for a week. Hope to finish the article when I return. I am over filled with great joy when the Pope talks about Jesus Christ. I just love Jesus! I really do. More and more everyday. I kinda figure I’m sorta building a stairway up to heaven. Thank you dear God for giving me a spiritual and immortal soul. (I wish I had a website to put this info on.)

Thanks Tim. God bless you and yours.