Why evolution doesnt matter.

[MindOverMatter]

Let’s try again. You’re willing to deny God’s omniscience and Divine providence in order to support Miller’s completely unfounded theological view (completely at odds with the teaching of the Church). Again, God is omniscient. Nothing can happen without his knowledge or will.

And biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process, flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result—including the development of human beings. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), p. 272]

This is obviously and completely false. Again, he says that mankind was not pre-ordained by God, but that human beings arose by an accident (that God was not involved in, that God was not aware of, that God did not direct). This denies the direct creation of man by God – it denies the *de fide *teaching that every human soul is created directly by God. He claims that man was an accident – happening without God willing or intending it.

Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings. [Quoted in Darwin Day, p. 226]
discovery.org/a/10121

Again, Miller claims that God only knew that some kind of creature would be created – but He didn’t know that man would emerge. This is not only heretical, it is blasphemous. Miller believes in an ignorant god. This is not the true God – all-knowing, all-powerful, possessing all perfections. It is an ignorant god that didn’t know what evolution would produce. The worship of a false god is idolatry. And that’s what we have here.

We can take a look at this quote from Miller’s biology textbook:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

Just forget it. I asked you to respond to the rest of my post and yet still you have responded with out any care to what i said. Thanks.

 

[reggieM]

Just forget it. I asked you to respond to the rest of my post and yet still you have responded with out any care to what i said. Thanks.

I care about what you have to say. You went on with arguments about Miller. I didn’t understand the rest of what you said, so I didn’t get into that.

 

[Matthias123]

It was ever thus – Stalin’s “paradox” of the liberation of the masses through the totalitarian despotism… Hitler’s cruel slogan over the front gate at Dachau: *“Arbeit Macht Frei”. *The language of enslavement is necessarily paradoxical because it must overcome the libertine urge of man. It must pursue and validate the basic cognitive dissonance, that I must wear chains if I want to be free, that I must die if I want to live, that I must suffer if I want to experience joy. How else can one present the rhetoric for chains, death and suffering, but by deploying Orwellian assaults on these concepts?

I must cry out in objection of your false analogy. As you are comparing, in your example a yin and yang. Your mistake is calling Y*hweh baal, as this is not who he has revealed himself to be. The revealed Lord does demand this “baalship” that you speak of, as he has decreed that we shall call him “Adonai” which translates as “Lord”, but more profoundly it translates as “husband”. The relationship between the creature and the creator is a love affair, a romance between groom and bride – husband and wife. The paradoxes that you speak of are paradoxes, as they resulted in “liberation” through mass destruction, but this is not the same species as the paradox of the cross. For the cross did, as in the above examples, produce an objective good out of an objective evil, but it was not the Christ that produced this evil, but man. You seem, in your haste to dismiss the cross, to have projected the objective evil on to the one crucified. The mystery of the cross is not that evil was brought out of good per se, but that Love itself became incarnate – God himself – who emptied himself for our sake on the altar of cavalry. In this we imitate Christ as he truly revealed, through the paschal mystery, what it is to be human.

You also obviously reject the reality that has been revealed to us, that man is made by God for God. We exist to do the will of God, and no other. You fail, obviously because you deny the existence of God, to put priorities in their proper hierarchies. This is where we are different my friend, as our view of reality is radically different. Christians love our neighbour less then Christ for the very fact that he is our God. This is the reason why the first commandment is “I am the Lord your God who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, you shall have no other God but me”. This seems to go along with “the more love the better” line of arguments. What about if I had 5 wives? There would be more love, exchanged between them. What about if I love my wife so much, that I decide to go out with her to a nice dinner instead of visiting my father on his deathbed? What about instead of taking care of my sick grandmother I decide to go to camp with my son. Priorities are crucial to the understanding of morality. As Christ is our God, he is our first priority. I assert that if God exists, and Christ is this God, this is the only morally perfect hierarchy that exists. How could it not be?

But how virtuous is the woman who delights in that not for its own reasons but just because she is a slave of Allah, or worse, knows she will be brutally beaten if she does not. “Virtue by force of law” is not true virtue. The “law of hijab” takes away the integrity of the woman’s virtue, as she is coerced, and even if she embraces it because it’s a good law, it’s because it’s a law.

If you value sacrifice and selflessness and self-discipline for its own sake, you need no God or law to virtuous in that way. God simply taints whatever virtue you may have, and I suppose it’s quite a lot in your case.

I do not deny that virtue is possible without God, yet we cannot speak of virtue unless we speak of natural law, as these concepts go hand in hand. As the Law of God is just the shedding of light what can already been seen by human reason, yet through our errors, and wickedness our vision of these truths are skewed and revelation was needed in order to illuminate what was hidden form our iniquitous eyes.

The perversion happens at a higher level, tainting the integrity of those good things, denying the goodness of sacrifice and self-denial as goods in their own right, goods toward good ends on their own, and “sovietizing” it as necessities in service to the “law of God”.And I don’t mean that in the “Numbers/Leviticus” sense, but in the “take up your cross and follow me” sense.

What are good things? What is good? Your positivism had blinded you from such things. You speak of good, and I ask you what is good per se? You claim that such inquires are vague and should be thrown info the fire as Hume says, but they are required. As good per see is the cause of all other goodness in the genus, thus all deficiencies of good are caused by this absolute good – the highest good. As since God is the first cause, end all perfections come from him how could he not be the highest good? This is what I am saying; it is the difference of world views. If I am right, you are immoral, if you are right, then I am willing to make the same claim that the 19th century atheists made and assert that morality itself falls through, and it is nothing but an illusion. When put into the terms of motivation to believe, and not a reason to believe, much is at stake.

 

[itinerant1]

Where in the Bible does it mention that other people lived at the time of Adam and Eve as some have asserted as fact? I think that didn’t come up until the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain and Abel were children of Adam and Eve if taken literally. In Genesis 4:15 it says

**"But the LORD said to him, “Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. **

Why would he need a mark if these were the Why are there other people who might harm Cain if they are the first descendants of Adam and Eve? This is the first time the Bible seems to indicate that other people lived at the time of Cain and Abel. But that doesn’t make sense if Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve.

Anyone care to comment?

Genesis is comprised of mostly three and later in the book, four, independent traditions woven together as best as possible. The ancient literary genres employed do not involve history and chronology in the way that we understand and use them. That is why you see apparent discrepancies when you read about Adam and Even followed by Cain and Abel. You are expecting an historical sequence in the modern sense, but doubtless, it is not there.

The biblical sequence is a theological one, one that does not employ strict chronology; and it really has no need at all for strict chronology. The biblical sequence teaches about the increasing evil over time in the human race consequent upon original and personal sin, God’s interactions with the Hebrews, establishing covenants, and remaining faithful to His promises. It is a common type of misreading that expects more and looks for more than what the biblical authors are actually teaching.

 

[itinerant1]

Where in the Bible does it mention that other people lived at the time of Adam and Eve as some have asserted as fact? I think that didn’t come up until the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain and Abel were children of Adam and Eve if taken literally. In Genesis 4:15 it says

**"But the LORD said to him, “Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. **

Why would he need a mark if these were the Why are there other people who might harm Cain if they are the first descendants of Adam and Eve? This is the first time the Bible seems to indicate that other people lived at the time of Cain and Abel. But that doesn’t make sense if Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve.

Anyone care to comment?

I addressed the Cain and Abel sequence in my previous post. Now regarding the Adam and Eve question, the biblical author is in fact teaching that all human beings are descended from one set of parents, Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve also represent in many ways all human beings. The consistent teaching throughout ancient Judaism and Catholicism is that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. No other humans existed except the offspring of Adam and Eve.

Now certain folks on CAF deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve or a single pair of original humans. This denial is based on an interpretation of genetic data. As for myself, I am maintaining the reality of a literal Adam and Eve, despite that particular interpretation of genetic data.

 

[Touchstone]

(snip for brevity)
The mystery of the cross is not that evil was brought out of good per se, but that Love itself became incarnate – God himself – who emptied himself for our sake on the altar of cavalry. In this we imitate Christ as he truly revealed, through the paschal mystery, what it is to be human.

The kenosis part I can admire in isolation, but the problem is, it doesn’t occur in isolation. If I break your window, and then come over and offer to repair it – and ask for you to pay me for the repair! – have you loved me?

You also obviously reject the reality that has been revealed to us, that man is made by God for God.

Yeah, it’s good to keep pointing out that my chief and gating objection is that we don’t have good cause to even think God exists, as a matter of reasoning. That’s important, because it’s tempting to get bogged down in all the back and forth about God’s goodness, justice, etc., or not, and lose sight of the real obstacle here.

We exist to do the will of God, and no other. You fail, obviously because you deny the existence of God, to put priorities in their proper hierarchies. This is where we are different my friend, as our view of reality is radically different.

I guess so, and that’s too bad. This is indulging a view that isolates men form each other, makes each man an island, living in their private, subjective worlds. The Muslim is off on his island, because Allah is real and in control for him, and the Mormon’s just off a bit to the south of that, and the Fundamentalist Baptist is way off in the distance. Cascading fractal realities, all thanks to the sense that one can and must construe reality however it strikes one’s subjective fancy. They all “just know” that’s how it really is.

We can be friends, despite all that, happily, if we so choose.

Priorities are crucial to the understanding of morality. As Christ is our God, he is our first priority. I assert that if God exists, and Christ is this God, this is the only morally perfect hierarchy that exists. How could it not be?

Well, as I said, I can’t see how any of that is more than imaginary. But if I’m wrong, I think a moral conscience and some moral courage would demand I reject those claims even if God was real. God’s being real would make him “morally perfect” in a voluntarist sense, “goodness” as a synonym for brute power. If this God did demand ritual slaughter of kids, rather than lambs, he’d be just as entitled, and just as rigteous and holy, on your measure, because you have conflated “good” with power. I would hope to have the courage to resist such claims and actions by such a god, undaunted by the fact that such a tyrant could make me suffer in unimaginable ways.

I do not acknowledge the God of Muhammad, as I believe he has perverted the God of Israel.

That is irrelevant to my point. My point was that no matter what the claimed source of authority is, coercion toward virtue is not virtue at all, but just obedience. A woman who covers her body because she will be beaten harshly if she doesn’t isn’t given a chance to be virtuous. Instead, self-preservation obtains, and she obeys.

I do not deny that virtue is possible without God, yet we cannot speak of virtue unless we speak of natural law, as these concepts go hand in hand. As the Law of God is just the shedding of light what can already been seen by human reason, yet through our errors, and wickedness our vision of these truths are skewed and revelation was needed in order to illuminate what was hidden form our iniquitous eyes.

It’s not. Saying “God thinks it’s wrong” does nothing to substantiate it’s wrongness. What underwrites that claim? “Might == right”?

Moral questions are hard ones, but God just confounds things, rather than helps. It’s practically useful because it imposes a simplistic framework by coercive claims. But that’s good only in pragmatic terms, not moral ones.

What are good things? What is good? Your positivism had blinded you from such things. You speak of good, and I ask you what is good per se?

OK, no way you can expect a respectable answer to that question stuffed in here. But if you want to spin up a thread on secular morality/ethics, I’ll do my part to carry the secular end.

You claim that such inquires are vague and should be thrown info the fire as Hume says, but they are required.

No, I don’t claim that. I do believe in moral facts, and the reasonable basis for morals and ethics.

As good per see is the cause of all other goodness in the genus, thus all deficiencies of good are caused by this absolute good – the highest good. As since God is the first cause, end all perfections come from him how could he not be the highest good?

What do you mean by highest good? I spent quite a long time wrestling with that question when it was put to me as a Christian, and no satisfactory Christian answer obtained. Maybe you can do better. My best answer was nothing more than a feeble voluntarism.

This is what I am saying; it is the difference of world views. If I am right, you are immoral, if you are right, then I am willing to make the same claim that the 19th century atheists made and assert that morality itself falls through, and it is nothing but an illusion. When put into the terms of motivation to believe, and not a reason to believe, much is at stake.

Oh, I’m aware. I just had the “Pascal’s wager” put to me here the other day. That’s just moral cowardice to think like that. If that kind of appeal was going to work, I wouldn’t be an atheist, right? The tyrant’s hammer is not an issue at all if the tyrant and hammer are no more real than Thor and his hammer.

Question: do you fear Allah and his wrath? If not, why not? If you say no, then I think you have your answer as to why an appeal like yours just rings completely hollow.

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

This is what our debate comes down to:
De ente et essentia:

A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions, as the Philosopher says in I De Caelo et Mundo cap. 5 (271b8-13), and thus, since being and essence are the things first conceived of by the intellect, as Avicenna says in Metaphysicae I, cap. 6, i

I assert that you are committing the error that Aristotle warned about. You have an erroneous understanding of being, and therefore your conclusions are in error.

What do you mean by highest good?

“We always act with a view to some good. The good is the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which they always act”, says Plato (Republic, I, vi) “that which all aim at”. (Ethics, I, i) More then this will take a whole thread.

Question: do you fear Allah and his wrath? If not, why not? If you say no, then I think you have your answer as to why an appeal like yours just rings completely hollow.

I did not pose you pascal’s wager, as I reject it myself.

 

[Touchstone]

I assert that you are committing the error that Aristotle warned about. You have an erroneous understanding of being, and therefore your conclusions are in error.

How may we tell an erroneous understanding of being from a correct one?

“We always act with a view to some good. The good is the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which they always act”, says Plato (Republic, I, vi) “that which all aim at”. (Ethics, I, i) More then this will take a whole thread.

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

-Paul, Romans 3

Maybe Plato had an erroneous understanding of being? Or was it Paul? Both?

I did not pose you pascal’s wager, as I reject it myself.

I didn’t take that as Pascal’s wager from you, but if you reject one, the other falls by the same principle. But let me press on Allah: do you fear his wrath?

“Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the idolaters will abide in the Fire of Hell.” [al-Bayyinah 98:6]

We’ve got a collegial acquaintance going. I’d hate to see you burn in the fires of Allah’s hell with me. There is much at stake, and that is your fate per Islam.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maritain called it an intuition of being, yet it corresponds accurately to what is observable, that is essence and existence. no one in islam fullfilled Messianic Prophecies. we know why they are wrong. thats why we arent worried about it.

 

[Touchstone]

Maritain called it an intuition of being, yet it corresponds accurately to what is observable, that is essence and existence. no one in islam fullfilled Messianic Prophecies. we know why they are wrong. thats why we arent worried about it.

You make a fine atheist, when it’s not your preferred god on the block! Kudos. Just off by one. In any case, your “why we aren’t worried about it” gives you a very good insight as to why I’m not the least bit worried about Yahweh (or Allah).

-TS

 

[grannymh]

Maybe Plato had an erroneous understanding of being? Or was it Paul? Both?
-TS

Regarding: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
-Paul, Romans 3 mentioned in post 188. May I sincerely suggest that one reads all of Chapter 3 in the letter of Paul to the Romans.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You make a fine atheist, when it’s not your preferred god on the block! Kudos. Just off by one. In any case, your “why we aren’t worried about it” gives you a very good insight as to why I’m not the least bit worried about Yahweh (or Allah).

-TS

we know that islam is wrong in that it has no one who fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies throughout the old testament. it is mathematically undeniable, without some evidence of massive fraud, conspiracy etc. which no one has. i dont see how that frees you from theism, in fact, a man of reason should be bound all the more tightly, in that it is a mathematical fact, and there is no evidence that refutes their veracity. hundreds of pieces of information point to Christ as the Messiah. it only takes 4 or 5 pieces of info to adress a letter to a man in botswana. yet hundreds of pieces, hundreds of years in advance, written by different men, unknown to eachother personally, over the course of centuries. address a letter to Christ, so to speak.

there is plenty of room on the chopping block, no?

 

[Matthias123]

Maybe Plato had an erroneous understanding of being? Or was it Paul? Both?

Oh please Touchstone. You may know much about many things, but you are poor at theology.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1)

For the choir director; according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good (Psalm 53:1)

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery you shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:2-3

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one. (Romans 3:10)

Righteous here is different from having virtue. It is true some pagans had virtue, but they were not righteous in the eyes of the God of Abraham.

I didn’t take that as Pascal’s wager from you, but if you reject one, the other falls by the same principle. But let me press on Allah: do you fear his wrath?

I am not talking about the wrath of God. I am asserting, like the atheists in the 19th century, that without God morality is nothing but wind. In this we have a motivation, because we both seem to desire goodness. I do not wish to exist in a world like this. (Not a reason to believe, but a motivation to believe)

We’ve got a collegial acquaintance going. I’d hate to see you burn in the fires of Allah’s hell with me. There is much at stake, and that is your fate per Islam.

Well, we will man the BBQ down there and host a wing night on tuesdays.

 

[Touchstone]

we know that islam is wrong in that it has no one who fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies throughout the old testament.

They do! His name is “Isa ibn Maryam”, who you know as Jesus. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy in Islam. Jesus is expected to return to the earth, killing the *Dajjal (*what you would call Antichrist), beat up the assembled kufr armies of Gog and Magog, and usher in a new era of peace and muslim brotherhood (cuz everyone’s a muslim at that point, I guess).

So prophetically, they have performed, if you say Christianity has.

it is mathematically undeniable, without some evidence of massive fraud, conspiracy etc. which no one has. i dont see how that frees you from theism, in fact, a man of reason should be bound all the more tightly, in that it is a mathematical fact, and there is no evidence that refutes their veracity. hundreds of pieces of information point to Christ as the Messiah. it only takes 4 or 5 pieces of info to adress a letter to a man in botswana. yet hundreds of pieces, hundreds of years in advance, written by different men, unknown to eachother personally, over the course of centuries. address a letter to Christ, so to speak.

there is plenty of room on the chopping block, no?

Didn’t get the letter thing, but if it attempts to support the “prophecies of Jesus” idea, so much the worse for you, its seems. That just strengthens the case for Islam. And muslims have not gone blaspheming as Christians have, making Jesus out to be God. If you are familiar with the Qur’an and hadith, and the muslim culture that proceeds from those, you will be aware that Allah is even more annoyed than Yahweh with blasphemers, if such a thing is possible. Truly, a terrible fate awaits the man who compares a man with Allah.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Oh please Touchstone. You may know much about many things, but you are poor at theology.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1)

For the choir director; according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good (Psalm 53:1)

These are the verses in LXX that Paul is referring to in Rom 3:10. Why do you see this as somehow working with Plato’s observation here? Do I need to quote you quoting Plato, here?

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery you shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:2-3

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one. (Romans 3:10)

Righteous here is different from having virtue. It is true some pagans had virtue, but they were not righteous in the eyes of the God of Abraham.

This doesn’t relieve the tension between Plato and Paul (and/or Jesus, and/or the Psalmist, whoever you want to pick there). The good is NOT the “the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which [we] always act” in the Judae-Christian view. That was the point of raising Paul’s line there, which seemed nice and succinct. But you provide expansion on it, which only amplifies my point. What Plato would call “the good”, Paul would call “filthy rags”!

And, just so we’re clear, I’m not taking a Calvinist line on Paul, here. I’m fine stipulating that God, per the NT, values good works, even if done by “natural man”. But “goodness”, even then, is define by God, not that “which we all pursue”.

I am not talking about the wrath of God. I am asserting, like the atheists in the 19th century, that without God morality is nothing but wind. In this we have a motivation, because we both seem to desire goodness. I do not wish to exist in a world like this. (Not a reason to believe, but a motivation to believe)

I can respect that distinction, and that motivation. Fortunately, those aren’t nearly the only choices available – a moral code from a totaltarian God or complete moral anarchy and chaos. That’s black and white thinking if there ever was such a think, a classic false dichotomy. Morality is desirable for the man who binds himself by it, productive and securing for the community he lives in. Like reasoning, it’s a tool that can and does help man survive, and live profitably, in peace and prosperity and justice with his fellow man, if he so chooses.

All with nary a god in sight.

Well, we will man the BBQ down there and host a wing night on tuesdays.

I’ll bring my guitar.

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

These are the verses in LXX that Paul is referring to in Rom 3:10. Why do you see this as somehow working with Plato’s observation here? Do I need to quote you quoting Plato, here?

The good is NOT the “the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which [we] always act” in the Judae-Christian view.

 

[itinerant1]

This doesn’t relieve the tension between Plato and Paul (and/or Jesus, and/or the Psalmist, whoever you want to pick there). The good is NOT the “the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which [we] always act” in the Judae-Christian view. That was the point of raising Paul’s line there, which seemed nice and succinct. But you provide expansion on it, which only amplifies my point. What Plato would call “the good”, Paul would call “filthy rags”!

-TS

I thought you understood something of Plato, St. Paul, Christianity, Being, and human nature, but your statement says otherwise.

The good is that which all pursue. It cannot be otherwise since evil does not exist as a thing in itself. Evil is a privation of good. Zoroaster might say otherwise. Perhaps you are influenced by Zoroastrian or Manichean thought.

In choosing a morally evil act, one’s goal is some good associated with the act, such as some pleasure. Hence, the distinction between the apparent good, and that which is objectively good in human choices. One cannot choose evil in itself, that which has no being.

 

[hecd2]

It’s not a matter of some grand disassociation from science. The history of science has taught me that scientists are not infallible. So, I am taking a considered watch and see position on the genetics question and subsequent scientific developments.

The interpretation of the current evidence is against a bottleneck. I certainly can’t argue against that. However, I have good extra-scientific reasons for maintaining that it is not the last word on the subject. That’s where I stand, come hell of high water, like it or not. I choose to play the part of the fool on this one issue.

Fair enough - that is a position I respect and certainly one that I can’t argue against. I personally think that it’s an increasingly dangerous position for the Church to continue to insist on doctrinally, but that of course, is a separate matter.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Fair enough - that is a position I respect and certainly one that I can’t argue against. I personally think that it’s an increasingly dangerous position for the Church to continue to insist on doctrinally, but that of course, is a separate matter.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Instead of bringing your data to rank and file Catholics, why not send it to the Vatican and see what they have to say?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bluegoat]

This doesn’t relieve the tension between Plato and Paul (and/or Jesus, and/or the Psalmist, whoever you want to pick there). The good is NOT the “the object which all pursue, and for the sake of which [we] always act” in the Judae-Christian view. That was the point of raising Paul’s line there, which seemed nice and succinct. But you provide expansion on it, which only amplifies my point. What Plato would call “the good”, Paul would call “filthy rags”!

-TS

You are misunderstanding either Paul or Plato here.