Thank God for Evolution!

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, I never questioned the existence of the Hittites; I reject the claims of some archaeologists that there never was a Moses, or a small Exodus from Egypt, or a period of some years of wandering in the desert, later interpreted theolgoically in epic style.

Fair enough.

I just have to note that this is not how your posts are coming across to me (and apparently others as well). You seem to be aligning yourself, via the language you use, to the far liberal spectrum of theological thought which simply says it’s all “religious mumbo jumbo” – much like Tom Harper if you know what I mean.

I myself would consider myself ‘liberal’, if such a thing applies, as far as God using normal evolutionary processes to sire Adam and Eve. But people like Harper seem to nearly delight in mocking the Hebrew Scriptures as being virtually a joke-- and then proceed to explain what the “real message” hidden in the text is.

In other words, there doesn’t appear to be any respect to the Hebrew text nor any willingness to consider that they may be speaking of real events-- and this, based on the apparent lack of archeological evidence thus far (if this is true).

What I haven’t seen substantiated are your claims that

(1) that the Canaanites were any more a “horrible people” (neither using the term “El” nor participating in fertility rites are capital offenses), than the Hebrews who sacrificed their own children as did Jephthah and Abraham;

First of all, Abraham didn’t actually sacrifice his child.

Second of all, some of the resonance of Mary’s choice toward God can be caught in the story of Jephthah’s daughter-- so I don’t think this is a myth either.

Personally, looking back toward the contrast between the Canaanites and the Israelites, the Hebrew Scriptures do portray the Hebrews as having at times sunk to a level even below that of Sodom-- which is precisely why he allowed foreign enemies to completely trample over the Israelites.
Deuteronomy 29:22-24:

Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger. All the nations will ask: “Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?”

This isn’t a pretty picture for Israel.

When I read the accounts in Joshua, I’m seeing that the Canaanites really were apparently such a depraved people that God actually did permit his “chosen people” to spread out into the surrounding areas and mostly decimate them nine-fold.

But this same exact thing (for the same exact reasons I might add) happens to Israel as well when they become just as depraved as the enemies they were originally sent against-- cf., Assyria, Babylon, etc. came in and decimated the Israelites nine-fold.

Portions of Psalm 106 convey this dynamic very well…

They did not destroy the peoples
as the LORD had commanded them,
but they mingled with the nations
and adopted their customs.

They worshiped their idols,
which became a snare to them.

They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to demons.

They shed innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was desecrated by their blood.

They defiled themselves by what they did;
by their deeds they prostituted themselves.

Therefore the LORD was angry with his people
and abhorred his inheritance.

He handed them over to the nations,
and their foes ruled over them.

Their enemies oppressed them
and subjected them to their power.

Chosen people or not, God apparently simply didn’t tolerate these things at this time in history. That’s what I’m picking up from this anyway.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

(2) the claim that some people using the term “El” and participating in fertility cults morally justifies slaughtering all the inhabitants of their cities – including their women and children – but leaving their real estate intact for the usufruct of the Hebrew invaders (this was the rationale of the developers of the neutron bomb in the 1980s).

Regarding the slaughter of everybody, this apparently was the practice of some of their enemies back then. Quite literally some of the nations around the Israelites, as far as I understood, really did charge in and wipe out all the inhabitants of their enemy’s cities-- or at least tried too.

Regarding the property, however, I think some may have used a scorched earth policy. The Scythians, for example, used scorched earth tactics against King Darius the Great of Persia. The Romans, much later on, certainly used a scorched earth policies as well. So if the Israelites did not destroy the property, at least they weren’t acting like many other nations later did in this regard.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

(2) the claim that some people using the term “El” and participating in fertility cults morally justifies slaughtering all the inhabitants of their cities – including their women and children – but leaving their real estate intact for the usufruct of the Hebrew invaders (this was the rationale of the developers of the neutron bomb in the 1980s).

Continued…

Nonetheless, it’s not like we haven’t archeologically excavated various Canaanite sights and can’t verify some of the claims the Scriptures charged against them.

Canaan is even mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari. This was a former Sumerian outpost in Syria. A letter from this time complains about certain “thieves and Canaanites (i.e. Kinahhu)” causing trouble in the town of Rahisum.

Regarding their practives, the earliest reference to child sacrifice in the Scriptuers is found in Leviticus where the practice is address by Moses in connection with Molech:

'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

And again…

"Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

In I Kings 11:7, this ‘Molech’ is identified as “the detestable god of the Ammonites” and recent archeological evidence in the former territory of the Ammonites from the period of the conquest supports the Scriptural record that child sacrifice was practiced in Jordan roughly contemporarily with Moses.

The Hebrew word Molech is the same Semitic root as the Punic word mulk which was found inscribed on several burial monuments at Carthage (which is also linked with child sacrifice) giving possible linguistic evidence for the continuity between the practice of child sacrifice in Canaan and at Carthage.

But whereas at Carthage the word refers to the sacrificial offerings including human sacrifice, in Leviticus it refers to the god who demands child sacrifice. The “passing through” refers to sacrificing by burning in a fire. For this “passing through to Molech” (same Hebrew words in Leviticus and Jeremiah) took place later in Israel’s history in the region of the high places of Ba’al in the Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jeremiah 32:35. This murderous scene was described by the Lord through the mouth of Jeremiah in earlier chapters:

For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built me the high places of Ba’al to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Ba’al - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth (possibly derived from an Aramaic word meaning hearth or fireplace but here referring to the precinct of child sacrifice)’’ or the Valley of ben Hinnom, but the Valley of slaughter.

Truly, if this is true, and it appears to me that it is based on the Scriptural record, then the peoples in this area truly were a depraved people.

Consequently, when Germany burned innocent Jews and Christians and others to death, we eventually did not sit back and complain about the possible guilty feelings associated with a potential genocide of Germany. We went in an fought them tooth and nail to remind them how cruel they really were and stop them before they spread out further.

I don’t see much difference when it comes to the Scriptural record of the Canaanites either. These were a depraved people and they weren’t going to leave peacefully either.

 

[drpmjhess]

Fair enough. I just have to note that this is not how your posts are coming across to me (and apparently others as well). You seem to be aligning yourself, via the language you use, to the far liberal spectrum of theological thought which simply says it’s all “religious mumbo jumbo” – much like Tom Harper if you know what I mean. .

Mr. Ex Nihilo, I don’t know who Tom Harpur is, but I certainly have little time for creation spirituatliy, if that’s what he represents. I find Matthew Fox risible.

I don’t like to think of myself “aligning” with anyone, and I would be considered fairly middle of the road among the 10,000 theologians who met last week in San Diego at the American Academy of Religion annual convention. I find resonance in the thought of many different schoalrs, including John Henry Newman, John Zahm, John Spalding, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Edwrad Schillebeeckz, Bernard Lonergan, Raymond Brown, John Haught, Erazim Kohak, Ted Peters, Monica Hellwig, and Pope John Paul II. There is no formula for perfect theology, but these are some of the people to whom I look.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

. These were a depraved people and they weren’t going to leave peacefully either.

Why should the Canaanites leave? That was their homeland. Justify it theologically however we might, genocide is genocide, and that’s what the Hebrews committed. The fact that the Assyrians and others committed it didn’t make it right for the Hebrews to do it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, I don’t know who Tom Harpur is, but I certainly have little time for creation spirituatliy, if that’s what he represents. I find Matthew Fox risible.

Matthew Fox, as former Catholic, did borrow from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s thoughts on evolutionary spirituality-- something which outright denies original sin.

I don’t like to think of myself “aligning” with anyone, and I would be considered fairly middle of the road among the 10,000 theologians who met last week in San Diego at the American Academy of Religion annual convention.

Could you provide a link to what this conference discussed?

I find resonance in the thought of many different schoalrs, including John Henry Newman, John Zahm, John Spalding, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckz, Bernard Lonergan, Raymond Brown, John Haught, Erazim Kohak, Ted Peters, Monica Hellwig, and Pope John Paul II.

I’ve read works from John Henry Newman (flat-out excellent), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who works were censored), Karl Rahner (who I deeply admire but must admit did face some restrictions with his later writings), and, of course, John Paul II (who really opened my mind to the possibility of theistic evolution).

John Zahm, John Spalding, Edward Schillebeeckz, Bernard Lonergan, Raymond Brown, John Haught, Erazim Kohak, Ted Peters, and Monica Hellwig, however, I have to admit I am not familiar with at all at this time.

Nonetheless, none of the people I am aware of in the this list of those I have read referred to the Hebrew Scriptures as some “mythical mumbo jumbo”, which is how you seem to present the earliest Scriptural records. Even Teilhard – who I think was in serious error and should not be placed beside John Henry Newman, Karl Rahner, nor Pope John Paul II) – did not treat the Hebrew Scriptures with disdain.

There is no formula for perfect theology, but these are some of the people to whom I look.

Petrus

The Church’s position remains inconclusive and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and the origin of man’s material body “from pre-existing living matter” are not in conflict. But you already know this.

Catholics must also believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person comes from. I’m fairly sure you already know this too.

Consequently, as you probably already likewise know, On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear too. The definitions preceding the “anathema”, as you already know, signifies an infallible dogma of Catholic faith (De Fide):

On God the creator of all things

If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

The Church has also, as you know, defined the following in the First Vatican Council, upholding the ability of reason to know God from His creation:

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

Now if God’s invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, what does the theory of evolution tell us about God since this is the way God apparently made us?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Why should the Canaanites leave? That was their homeland. Justify it theologically however we might, genocide is genocide, and that’s what the Hebrews committed. The fact that the Assyrians and others committed it didn’t make it right for the Hebrews to do it.

They wouldn’t have had to leave if they had simply stopped practicing their evil ways. In other words, they had to stop sacrificing children to the fire and stop prostituting themselves in the name of their pagan gods.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony writes:

If God made dust from nothing then made man from the dust, then God still made man from nothing, since dust could be considered an intermediate stage in the creation process. In the same way lower forms of life and apes could be intermediate stages, all made from nothing by God.

You asked a similar question earlier (post 41) and my response (post 51) was as it is now:

The Magisterial text of Lateran IV rather than contradicting Scripture clarifies it. Man was “created” (Gen. 1:27) and “formed of the slime of the earth” (Gen. 2:7 Douay-Rheims). Things “created” are brought into existence from nothing, i.e. they did not exist before, through the intermediary of something; in this case the slime of the earth.The Church Fathers who interpreted Scripture gave it this explanation. The Council defintions are drawn from the traditional interpretations.

If you feel this is not a sufficient reply to your latest question, please let me know why and I will endeavor to be more precise.

You also wrote, referring to the creation of things in their whole substance:

In their whole substance, God didn’t leave us half-made, he finished the job.

I agree, but with evolution nothing is finished, everything is in flux and continues to change. In any case Lateran IV affirms that everything was completed at the same time (simul) from the beginning.

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil_Anthony:

If God made dust from nothing then made man from the dust, then God still made man from nothing, since dust could be considered an intermediate stage in the creation process. In the same way lower forms of life and apes could be intermediate stages, all made from nothing by God.

The Magisterial text of Lateran IV rather than contradicting Scripture clarifies it. Man was “created” (Gen. 1:27) and “formed of the slime of the earth” (Gen. 2:7 Douay-Rheims). Things “created” are brought into existence from nothing, i.e. they did not exist before, through the intermediary of something; in this case the slime of the earth.The Church Fathers who interpreted Scripture gave it this explanation. The Council defintions are drawn from the traditional interpretations.

The Church Fathers allowed that there could be an intermediary, such as dust, used to create man, since that intermediary was also created by God from nothing. So whether the intermediary is dust or dust then slime then lower life forms then man, it’s the same thing. God created man from nothing, because he created everything from nothing, including the intermediaries. So evolution doesn’t contradict Lateran IV.

Neil_Anthony:

In their whole substance, God didn’t leave us half-made, he finished the job.

I agree, but with evolution nothing is finished, everything is in flux and continues to change. In any case Lateran IV affirms that everything was completed at the same time (simul) from the beginning.

Lateran IV doesn’t claim that everything was completed at the same time, in fact it allows for instantaneous creation, as per Augustine, or 6 day creation as per many of the Fathers, or a longer period.

Regarding the ‘constant flux’ in biology that concerns you: The fact that a child is not exactly the same as his parents does not mean that God didn’t create human beings. You are attempting to create problems where there are no problems. Do you think you have a better understanding of Lateran IV than John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you think you have a better understanding of Lateran IV than John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

Yes, he does think that.

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Not so. I join with others in examining the theory that says all life evolved and find it lacking. There are too many anamolies that point to incorrect geologic dates, survival of creatures supposedly millions of years old and evidence that modern men observed dinosaurs. I view current evolutionary science as thoroughly corrupted by ideology.

**Ed you are a jewel.After being again argued into a corner and virtually admitting everything we have been saying, you wipe the slate clean and begin again at square one, evolution is not proven, so I continue to believe in creationism. Any time now you can just admit you don’t agree with the church and we can move on. Something may be corrupted alright, but it might be your ability to tell the truth. **

 

[Neil_Anthony]

edwest2;3026218:

Not so. I join with others in examining the theory that says all life evolved and find it lacking. There are too many anamolies that point to incorrect geologic dates, survival of creatures supposedly millions of years old and evidence that modern men observed dinosaurs. I view current evolutionary science as thoroughly corrupted by ideology.

**Ed you are a jewel.After being again argued into a corner and virtually admitting everything we have been saying, you wipe the slate clean and begin again at square one, evolution is not proven, so I continue to believe in creationism. Any time now you can just admit you don’t agree with the church and we can move on. Something may be corrupted alright, but it might be your ability to tell the truth. **

I’m pretty sure that the church doesn’t have a specific teaching on matters of science like evolution, and that we’re all free to accept it or not. I don’t see how rejecting any scientific theory can be considered to be “disagreeing with the church”.

I don’t believe that electrons are really particles. Does that make me a heretic? (Answer: No, it makes me a quack, the scientific parallel to heretic)

 

[Peter_Wilders]

SpiritMeadow writes:

To argue that because of an encyclical issued in 1215 that discounts evolution is a reason why anybody should suspend their natural reasoning and ignore 150 years worth of work, is I suspect such a uncalled for proposition, that it needs no rebuttal. I know a lot of folks here would like to turn back the clock to 1959 but its a bit much to turn it back that far.

1. Lateran IV was re-affirmed and clarified (Canon 5) by Vatican I (post Darwin) so for evolutionists it wasn’t that far back.
2. The Lateran IV dogma, far from being an encyclical, was a infallible doctrine that forms part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church. It provides the Church’s official definition of Creation.
3. Catholics believe in dogmas such as the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist which might require them to “suspend their natural reasoning”. As our salvation depends on them Catholics do not put them into question. Logically, the same applies to the entire deposit of the Faith. But when it comes to evolution, where natural reasoning is not challenged because it (evolution) is unproven there are many who demur. Yet the rationale is the same:

If a man loves me he will keep my word and my Father will love him…He who does not love me does not keep my words. (John 14: 23-24)

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To argue that because of an encyclical issued in 1215 that discounts evolution is a reason why anybody should suspend their natural reasoning and ignore 150 years worth of work, is I suspect such a uncalled for proposition, that it needs no rebuttal. I know a lot of folks here would like to turn back the clock to 1959 but its a bit much to turn it back that far.

SpiritMeadow, just so that no one misunderstands, are you suggesting here that the canons of the 4th lateran council were in error? I suspect you aren’t but perhaps you should clarify.

See this thread for a discussion of the relative importance of old ecumenical councils : forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=202317

 

[drpmjhess]

They wouldn’t have had to leave if they had simply stopped practicing their evil ways. In other words, they had to stop sacrificing children to the fire and stop prostituting themselves in the name of their pagan gods.

The United Nations General Assembly defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II, 1951

This declaration was drawn up in large part to prevent another liquidation of an entire people as had been perpetrated by the Nazis. Ironically, by this definition, the Hebrews who burned entire cities and killed their inhabitants were engaging in genocide. They may have been acting no differently than others around them, but it was still genocide. And they may have justified it by constructing a theology of history in which “God” told them to do it, but it was still genocide. If God isn’t keen on genocide today, I doubt that God was keen on it in the twelfth century BCE.

 

[drpmjhess]

I agree, but with evolution nothing is finished, everything is in flux and continues to change. In any case Lateran IV affirms that everything was completed at the same time (simul) from the beginning.Peter

Some conclusions from Lateran IV may be relevant to Catholics, but a prescientific declaration that “everything was completed at the same time” is no more relevant to scientists in 2007 than is the Native American creation myth that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This declaration was drawn up in large part to prevent another liquidation of an entire people as had been perpetrated by the Nazis. Ironically, by this definition, the Hebrews who burned entire cities and killed their inhabitants were engaging in genocide. They may have been acting no differently than others around them, but it was still genocide. And they may have justified it by constructing a theology of history in which “God” told them to do it, but it was still genocide. If God isn’t keen on genocide today, I doubt that God was keen on it in the twelfth century BCE.

Destroying those cities might have actually been an act of self defense and self preservation for the Hebrews. Perhaps it was a situation of kill or be killed on a grand scale of ethnic group vs. ethnic group. In such a situation, was there another way God could have given his favor to the Hebrews and rescued them from slavery and from starvation in the desert?

 

[drpmjhess]

Could you provide a link to what this conference discussed?

?

Mr. Ex Nihilo, the American Academy of Religion is the largest association of theological scholars in the world (it draws theologians from well beyond the US). It would be impossible to summarize the breadth and depth of the theological conversations in which it is engaged. At last week’s annual convention there were dozens of parallel sessions running all day long for four days; thousands of papers were presented and discussed.

Here is a link to the AAR’s Program Units, from which you can get a sense of the sorts of themes and theological issues discussed at annual conferences, both national and regional: aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Program_Units/default.asp

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Destroying those cities might have actually been an act of self defense and self preservation for the Hebrews. Perhaps it was a situation of kill or be killed on a grand scale of ethnic group vs. ethnic group. In such a situation, was there another way God could have given his favor to the Hebrews and rescued them from slavery and from starvation in the desert?

Well, if for God everything is possible, God could have led them elsewhere in the Ancient Near East, or could have created some more fertile land so that the Hebrews would not have had to invade a land already occupied by Canaanites. But God evidently didn’t choose that option. It was probably just easier to goad the Hebrews into committing genocide on the Canaanites.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, if for God everything is possible, God could have led them elsewhere in the Ancient Near East, or could have created some more fertile land so that the Hebrews would not have had to invade a land already occupied by Canaanites. But God evidently didn’t choose that option. It was probably just easier to goad the Hebrews into committing genocide on the Canaanites.

I don’t think the Canaanites were listening to Yahweh. Even the Hebrews barely listened to Him. So how could God lead the Canaanites away without violating their free will?

If God made more fertile land, wouldn’t some other nation have been living there already? That might have stopped the Exodus in its tracks.