Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'm sorry but atheism = contra theism.

It is contra theism.

For example, if you will, explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together.


1,387 posted on 02/15/2006 7:23:30 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
"I'm sorry but atheism = contra theism.

It is contra theism."

No it isn't. And atheism means the belief that God doesn't exist. It does not apply to a position that goes against some particular interpretation of theism.

"For example, if you will, explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together."

God could have created us through evolution.
1,389 posted on 02/15/2006 7:25:52 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; CarolinaGuitarman
I'm sorry but atheism = contra theism.

No, that would be antitheism. The alpha privative a- (or an-) is simply a negation.

1,393 posted on 02/15/2006 7:36:59 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
For example, if you will, explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together.

Somebody shoot me, I'm about to post on ANOTHER crevo thread! What am I nuts? Anywhere, here goes....

This is a post I made a while back on this thread, and I think it fits in nicely here.

Someone posted to me, One of those [universal elements of Christianity], accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.

And I replied thusly: Yes, however I don't see how believing in the evolution of the human body negates this. I'm not denying the universal element you described. I do not believe that Adam is a "metaphorical construct" totally separate from reality. I simply don't believe it's important to know exactly how his body was formed to understand and accept the message of salvation.

I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, and it doesn't really matter for this conversation, but one perfectly valid way (in my opinion) of viewing our nature is as Pope Pius XII stated regarding evolution:

"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. source

So what's this saying? Basically it's saying that it's the soul of man ultimately responsible for our nature. Our soul is that which defines us, not merely our bodies (although, being created by God, the body is a part of us, but it's not what defines us ultimately).

Thus, our bodies very well could have developed through the process we call "evolution" today, (even though this is, I believe, of course a process guided by God, but that doesn't really change whether or not evolution as a process is real), but our soul has never and is never "evolved"; the soul is created.

So did Adam, the actual person live? I believe so yes. But how did Adam's body come into being? Does that really matter? That's the question. I submit it doesn't really matter what you believe. It doesn't really matter if you believe that Adam's body evolved from a common ancestor with apes, or if you believe that his body was literally formed from the dust of the earth. It doesn't really matter because our salvation is not linked to our body, but rather what we do with our soul.

Now again, you may disagree with this, and that's fine. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to believe that Adam was literally created from dust. I don't see why other Christians though seem to insist upon forcing such a literal interpretation on others? (and that seems to be the reason these crevo threads keep popping up, because if we just had a "live and let live" philosophy on this issue, then we wouldn't have the crevo threads, much less the recent brouhaha in Kansas, or Pennsylvannia)

So, if you still remain unconvinced, if you still believe there should be only a strict interpretation of Genesis, then that returns us to the (my) original point, which is, "Why should we take Genesis literally? Why is your [or any creationist's/IDer's] opinion of Scripture any more superior to mine, or to Pope Pius XII'ths or, ...........etc?"

1,394 posted on 02/15/2006 7:40:06 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; CarolinaGuitarman; OrthodoxPresbyterian

"..explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together." ~ xzins

Here's how one (non-RCC) Christian scientist sees it fitting together:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html

~ Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org

As the previous pope pointed out, there are several theories of evolution. When OP speaks about evolutionISM, he is referencing the specific theory of evolution embraced by atheists like Dawkins.

The terms "evolution" and "creationISM" must be specifically defined before one goes on to use them in arguments. It's a matter of semantics - the words mean different things to different people. I see people wasting time arguing apples and oranges here all the time.

For example, I think the previous pope nailed down the bottom line pretty well when he said:

"..What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."

In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.

St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.

All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html


1,401 posted on 02/15/2006 8:12:18 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson