Whats wrong with having five wives

[starsmurf]

Intelligent design does not = creationism. Intelligent design means that we are not random accidents instead we are intentionally created by an intelligent being.

Intelligent design does not exclude or include evolution. Catholics believe in intelligent design because we believe that God intentionally created us.

I know about Intelligent Design as I’m a scientist, though not a biologist (I’m an astrophysicist). Intelligent Design (ID) includes bits of evolution, but claims that God interfered in the process at points. ID includes many ideas from creationism, such as the argument that some biological structures, like the eye, are “irreducibly complex”. These arguments are all based on an incorrect understanding of biology and evolution. ID was invented by a group of US creationists after the teaching of “creationist science” was banned in US public schools, by the Sumpreme Court. ID is just creationism disgused as science, it is not a scientific theory as it has not passed any empirical tests. That’s because it doesn’t have any, there is no way of testing the things it proposes, so it can’t even be called a scientific hypothesis, or set of hypotheses, as scientists call ideas that haven’t yet passed their tests, but that do have ways in which they can be tested. In a 2005 case against Dover Area School District, the Judge in the case stated that ID isn’t a science as it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”.*****

I think what you are referring to is the Holy Father’s statement that evolution is not incompatible with the Bible. As long as we believe that God knew that evolution would produce humans - which, of course, He did - then we have not contradicted Church Teaching. As a way of making the idea more acceptable, ID proponents encourage intelligent people like yourself to think that ID is the same as the Holy Father’s statement, when it is not.

I believe that our physical appearance was unimportant, so God didn’t need to change things. If we had six legs, eight arms, ten eyes, blue skin and communicated via little coloured lights on the tops of our heads, would salvation history be significantly different? It doesn’t matter what shape our bodies are, we would still have fallen and would still be in need of Jesus. I don’t think God “interfered” in evolution to create the physical bodies we have, I believe that He only “interfered” to give us immortal souls at the moment of ensoulment, so that we would be in the image of God. There are many people like myself who have some form of disfigurement or deformity and whose DNA and genes are mutated. We are still made in the image of God, so the human form itself is not important, only the soul.

*****This quote came from the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design, I would recommend reading it if you’re interested in ID.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[starsmurf]

I can go along with reading Genesis 1 in terms of evolution: have you noticed how our planetary system resembles Bohr’s model of the atom. It takes time for electrons and neutrons to settle into an orbit around proton sun. It takes time for the ginormous supernova which God created to cool into planets;

Sorry to pick what you wrote apart but it has some common misconceptions. First of all, Bohr’s model of the atom is not a physical reality. It’s a useful way to think of the atom, it can be used to do some calculations that would be much, much harder using quantum mechanics. Protons and electrons are not little “Suns” and “planets” that orbit in circles. They are both a particle and a wave, so atoms are more like fuzzy clouds.

The planets didn’t take time to settle into their orbits and electrons don’t take time to settle into their orbit either; even in Bohr’s model, the orbit is fixed, the electron can only move into certain other orbits and it needs energy from something like a photon (a particle of light) to do that. Neutrons are in the nucleus with the protons.

more time for vegetation to sprout and provide fodder for fish, birds and animals that were to come. But even Darwin baulked at the absence of “the missing link”. The first five days can be stretched to cover an apparently evolution THEORY - and it is STILL an unproved theory.

Darwin didn’t baulk at the absence of a missing link, he simply pointed out that it hadn’t yet been found.

You don’t understand what a scientific THEORY is. In science, a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment”, in the words of the National Academy of Sciences. So there is the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, both of which have been confirmed by careful experimentation, carried out by many different groups. Something that someone has just thought up is called a scientific hypothesis, if it can be supported empirically and has testable predictions.

Far from being an “unproved theory”, evolution has been repeatedly tested, by many different groups, in many different ways and has passed its tests. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field.

But on the sixth day, when all was prepared and ready for His beloved people, God said, “let us make mankind in our image.” In Genesis 1 verse 7: “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.” Note that the Holy Spirit is originally called pneuma agios (breath/wind Holy): one puff from the Lord was enough to power generation after generation from Adam and his rib-wife right down to us know-alls today. When people call gorillas our kith and kin i tell them “you’re welcome to your ancestry, chum: I was made by God.”

We are not made in the physical image of God, we are made in the spiritual image as we have immortal souls. The idea that God is a physical being (apart from during Jesus’ Incarnation) is not compatible with Catholic teachings. How could we be made in the physical image of God? There are so many differences in humans, from male and female, to people with physical deformities and disfigurements. Because I’m female and have disfigurement and deformity, does that mean I am not as close to God as you are?

When God blows the life into Adam in Gen 2:7, the word for breath would be “spirit”, so God was giving us a spirit. Before that, he was just lifeless clay. It is in Gen 1:26 that God says “let us make man in Our image”, and God makes many humans, not just one as it says “male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27). Again, there could not be a physical likeness, only a spiritual one.

I am proud to call such magnificent creatures as gorillas our relatives. Having evolution also explains the horrific side of creation, such as malaria or river blindness, which is a parasitic disease. It is spread by the bite of a blackfly and is a leading cause of blindness in the Third World as it destroys the optical tissues. It also causes other horrible symptoms, including severe itching which cannot be relieved and can result in death when the damage to the skin from itching lets in infection. Medical charities used to find entire villages where everyone, apart from children, was blind. The children would be helping out, with their own terrible itching tormenting them, as they waited to go blind. How could a loving God create such creatures? Why would God make a creature whose life-cycle requires terrible suffering for a child and eventual blindness?

You may have been “made by God” but in that case, so was everything else around you, including the gorillas. If you’re looking at it that way, then your ancestry is a blob of clay; basically, you’re descended from dirt. I prefer to be a relative of a gorilla .

 

[starsmurf]

cont from above

PS I used to brag, “I am made in the image of God” but then realized God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made all the generations of mankind, male and female, into their image. Yes, God is that big! A Born Again preacher (can’t remember his name, but he’s the witty one), claimed to have been taken up to Heaven and taken to the throne of God. He says God was ENORMOUS, VAST: angels go round Him in fast jets that take light years to encircle the Lord and each time they come around they see a different face of God. He adds, no wonder they continuously exclaim, “HOLY HOLY HOLY” its the constant wonder!

First of all, God isn’t a physical being, so that preacher was not seeing things as they are. Angels couldn’t go around God “in fast jets that take light-yeasrs to encircle the Lord”, as light-years are not a measure of time, they measure distance ! If God were light years across, the angels would be moving so slowly in comparison that you wouldn’t think they were moving at all. I would doubt this man’s story, as I have actually had a near-death experience, and it was nothing like that. You can’t put an experience like that into words.

God is indeed worthy of wonder and glory. Evolution combined with astronomy (my area) results in mindboggling awe. The very atoms in our bodies were made inside some of the universe’s most amazing events. The hydrogen formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang, the carbon and oxygen formed inside ancient stars at the end of their lives and the iron in our blood was the core of a giant star in the last seconds of its life. If you wear any jewellery, the gold and silver formed in the maelstrom of a supernova, in a fraction of a second.

Accepting the scientific explanations doesn’t take away the wonder of creation, it enhances it. I find the idea of a God who set up such a wonderful universe amazing. We are all the descendants of stars and the universe itself

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If you’re looking at it that way, then your ancestry is a blob of clay; basically, you’re descended from dirt.

God did form us from clay.

(Good couple of posts. )

 

[TimeEntrance]

Far from being an “unproved theory”, evolution has been repeatedly tested, by many different groups, in many different ways and has passed its tests. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field.

Star, your field of study and research is more of a science than biology I think. If for no other reason biology is limited to a sample size of one. Life elsewhere in the galaxy may be totally different. I’m not certain but I think bio-mathematician Ian Stewart along with a biologist friend of his and fellow author, have suggested that its possible life in another part of the universe might consist of non-corporal beings like angels.

I do believe in evolution but mainly because it has not been proven false and its explanatory power is strong. It provides a good explanation for the unity and diversity of life.

However, the scale of evolutionary changes, or scales of decent with modification, you are talking about, has not been observed in any laboratory. No one has observed a more sophisticated and intelligent primate evolve from a less sophisticated and less intelligent primate. And this is even with our ability to make artificial selections in a controlled laboratory.

What has been observed in laboratories are changes in frequencies of gene expressions. That’s about it.

But it’s the fossil records from which we draw our inferences from the most.

The theory of evolution is less a product of observational science than it is from inferential science.

That’s not to say inferences are bad. Physicists and chemists have done it for a long time. But you guys end up expressing your laws and theories as you understand the physical world mathematically.

Biology utilizes math and probabilities too - but to a lesser degree.

The theory of evolution really can’t be expressed mathematically. It uses inferences from fossil records, the genome of life, taxonomy, and relies heavily on a literary narrative akin to novels and biblical books like Genesis.

Personally, I believe in an Intelligent Designer. But the current theory of evolution does not because science does not involve itself with the notion of a God.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I don’t understand why God has to directly create an arm or a leg in order to be an intelligent designer. God can create the laws, the information, and the meaning, and yet allow the universe to evolve naturally according to those laws, information, and meaning.

That would be an intelligent designer.

Science currently explains the creation of the universe - and then life - originating from chance, not God. The laws that govern the physical universe can be explained without an Intelligent Designer.

I was just giving a philosophical explanation and example when I used the objects of a human and an arm.

But this is all digressing off topic.

I would say life and human life are remarkable in this universe and if we believe in a God then the intelligence, industry, or discipline of a man is no more special than the beauty of a woman. At least not when looking at the varying levels of organization of their bodies all the way down to the cellular or atomic level. The lack of formal education and the ignorance of the protagonists Adam and Eve would seem to suggest this to me: human life being good for its own sake because God created all men and women in His own image.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I like TE’s analysis as well. Looking at this from a purely biological and anthropological standpoint can be very helpful.

As a point to consider…What a woman might see as a "Alpha"or a “Loser” male can and does vary from female to female…and perhaps this is an important point of departure.

In most comparative animal societies, the Alpha is the one who can “beat up” the other males. He is physically the strongest, quickest, most aggressive and - perhaps to an extent - the smartest. After defeating the other males, he then mates with many females.

In human terms this is not so much the case…
To use a modern analogy…I’m sure we’ve all seen (in the U.S. at least) the bumper stickers saying “My child is an Honor Student” - and most likely you’ve seen the bumper sticker that says “My kid beat up your honor student”…
Well the upshot of that is that the one who “beat up” the honor student will - quite likely - find himself working for (subservient to) that (or some other) honor student…

To use a Biblical reference…David attained an “Alpha” level of respect, not by a traditional method of fighting his enemy, but by using his skill with the sling.Perhaps, if we go back far enough we will find some “lesser” male who defeated a stronger male by heaving a rock for a “lucky hit”??

Anyway - I’m getting off track here…
Many women today might see success or physical prowess etc as attractive, but some - many women also see Intelligence, gentleness, caring and thoughtfulness as “alpha” characteristics as well.

Peace
James

I am not sure this is the whole picture. I believe there is a recognised phenomenon where females are attracted to “losers” - those males who shun the herd or are rejected by the herd or live on the margins of the herd.

Perhaps this relates to your "What a woman might see as a “Alpha"or a “Loser” male can and does vary from female to female” insight.

If so then I would posit that the subjective appreciation of “Alpha” varies exceedly between females to the point that the very concept of an objectively defined “Alpha” starts to breakdown and not be very useful.

Alpha is in the eye of the beholder

 

[IanGE]

The planets didn’t take time to settle into their orbits and electrons don’t take time to settle into their orbit either; even in Bohr’s model, the orbit is fixed, the electron can only move into certain other orbits and it needs energy from something like a photon (a particle of light) to do that. Neutrons are in the nucleus with the protons.

When I first did physics nearly 70 years ago, the book still said “An atom is the smallest INDIVISIBLE particle of nature”. I got walloped for objecting, “but Sir, they split the atom: they dropped the atom bomb last year!” Splitting the atom threw established theory into the fan. I first learnt that “electric current” flowed from the positive terminal of a battery or generator to the negative terminal. Then “electronics” hit the fan and it was decided that negative electrons were shuffled along under the influence of electrical or magnetic forces, knocking out “free” electrons which leapt from atom to atom in a conductive material. Now it takes a photon to do that?
The planetary system look awfully like Bohr’s model to me (maybe that’s what gave
him the idea.) The theory was the negative electrons were attracted to the positive proton but repelled by other electrons and fought an orbital battle which eventually settled down into fixed, mutually attracted and repulsed, orbits. Whatever, I’m sorry I dared to even try to explain how God made the universe. At some point in our mutual eternities we’ll finally understand!

Darwin didn’t baulk at the absence of a missing link, he simply pointed out that it hadn’t yet been found.

We are not made in the physical image of God, we are made in the spiritual image as we have immortal souls. The idea that God is a physical being (apart from during Jesus’ Incarnation) is not compatible with Catholic teachings. How could we be made in the physical image of God? There are so many differences in humans, from male and female, to people with physical deformities and disfigurements. Because I’m female and have disfigurement and deformity, does that mean I am not as close to God as you are?
I did make the point that in the Hebrew it is more "let us make MANKIND (male, female, but I don’t know about “don’t knows”). That means every human being ever born, are born and will be born are collectively made in the image of God - warts and all. What humans see as disfiguring physical or psychological scars, God sees as a loving purpose HE created. One of the things I leave with Him, the only Living Being with Whom the buck ultimately stops.

When God blows the life into Adam in Gen 2:7, the word for breath would be “spirit”, so God was giving us a spirit. Before that, he was just lifeless clay. It is in Gen 1:26 that God says “let us make man in Our image”, and God makes many humans, not just one as it says “male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27). Again, there could not be a physical likeness, only a spiritual one.

I am proud to call such magnificent creatures as gorillas our relatives.

You may have been “made by God” but in that case, so was everything else around you, including the gorillas. If you’re looking at it that way, then your ancestry is a blob of clay; basically, you’re descended from dirt. I prefer to be a relative of a gorilla .

Hallelujah! We have found the missing link!

PS Starsmurf, had I realised earlier you were an astrophysicist I wouldn’t have dared to cross swords with you!

 

[starsmurf]

Hallelujah! We have found the missing link!

PS Starsmurf, had I realised earlier you were an astrophysicist I wouldn’t have dared to cross swords with you!

Wahahaha, the POWER!!!

 

[ReapReason]

Wahahaha, the POWER!!!

You are an astrophysicist?

Okay, what is the oldest asteroid?

no…actually, what is the oldest star?

no…actually, what is the oldest quasar?

no…actually, what is the oldest galaxy?

no…actually, what is the oldest multiverse?

Grrrrrrrr!!!

 

[Elsa1]

Do Catholics have a philosophical argument for why having more than one wife is wrong.

I am not interested in statements of faith.

God is not arbitrary: there is a rational basis behind all moral commandments.

No more wrong than having five husbands. Polyandry is practiced to this day.

 

[ReapReason]

The laws that govern the physical universe can be explained without an Intelligent Designer.

I would very much like to hear that explanation.

 

[starsmurf]

You are an astrophysicist?

Okay, what is the oldest asteroid?

Probably Ceres or Vesta.

no…actually, what is the oldest star?

Last time I checked, it was HE 1523-0901, it is 13.2 billion years old. There will be older stars out there (we hope) but they will be very small and faint and therefore difficult to detect.

no…actually, what is the oldest quasar?

It is ULAS J1120+0641, which is about 12.9 billion light years from us. It was having its messy meal a mere 770 million years after the Big Bang.

no…actually, what is the oldest galaxy?

It is probably UDFj-39546284, a galaxy in the new Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF), it still needs to be comfirmed. We see this galaxy as it was just 460 million years after the Big Bang. The record will (hopefully) change later this year, as an even deeper field is released.

no…actually, what is the oldest multiverse?

The one slightly to your left, up a bit and three millimeters into the fifth dimension.

Grrrrrrrr!!!

 

[Sair]

No more wrong than having five husbands. Polyandry is practiced to this day.

I would certainly like to think it is - it just doesn’t attract the headlines, apparently. Maybe it’s just not as “sensational” as polygamy…who knows?

And in reply to the post to which you were replying, if God has a rational reason for every prohibition, why doesn’t he make it more apparent to us supposedly rational creatures made in his image?

 

[starsmurf]

I would certainly like to think it is - it just doesn’t attract the headlines, apparently. Maybe it’s just not as “sensational” as polygamy…who knows?

And in reply to the post to which you were replying, if God has a rational reason for every prohibition, why doesn’t he make it more apparent to us supposedly rational creatures made in his image?

Polyandry in the cultures mentioned, is not a case of a woman chosing to marry more than one man. Instead, two or more men - usually related - get together because they cannot afford the “bride price” individually. It is not the choice of the woman and is just another case of women being treated as objects.

I would have thought that the reasons I gave, that polygamy almost always results in pain and suffering for one or more of the women involved, is enough of a “rational” reason. God doesn’t have to spell everything out, we should be thoughtful and caring enough to work them out for ourselves.

 

[Midwest88]

On tumblr, a social networking site, I stumbled across this:

Stay faithful or stay single (closed vs open relationship)

One of the worse assumptions in the West is the systematic thinking of “pairs,” “us vs. them,” “this or that,” “black & white,” “good or bad.” Open relationships are another option for some people. I think many people give open relationships a bad name. Some people are less jealous and envious. There’s a whole different set of ethics involved with open relationships that is neither right nor wrong. Of course, all members of an open relationship have to be open minded, honest, and good on communicating with each other for it to work. And I think it can be successful more than we think it can be.

Stay faithful,
Stay single.
Stay open.  
…All are viable options.

Of course this person is an atheist. He also had this to say

I’m getting better about being more open about this. But it’s sad that many of us are afraid to be open about the truth. People can often get disowned by their families for being honest about their lack of belief of god/s. In ancient Greece, it was capital punishment for not believing in the gods. I guess I (and thousands of others) are lucky to be living in a time we don’t have to be so afraid despite living in the exceptional BS pockets of the world. For me, my world grew much larger and more beautiful when I got rid of my belief in an imaginary idea. The world is missing out.

on morality:

for morality is the mind not f_cking religion. Religion is invented by man not some supreme being, Im an atheist and i have morals, do you know why? because im not a f_cking psychopath. F_cking study the mind, study psychology and you can learn about morals. Your “god” didn’t invent morals, the humans that recorded their moral beliefs in your “holy book” created the morals you believe in. go f___ yourself you self-righteous piece of _____.