What is a man? A physical body or a spiritual mind? God created our souls in his own image. If He had created our bodies in his own image He'd be the universe's #1 narcissist AND we'd all look like this:
Posted on 02/11/2009 10:07:55 AM PST by wafflehouse
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What is a man? A physical body or a spiritual mind? God created our souls in his own image. If He had created our bodies in his own image He'd be the universe's #1 narcissist AND we'd all look like this:
Your argument is flawed.
Had God NOT created us in His image and likeness, would we not still owe him honour?
We honour our parents because, like God, they participated in our creation, not because they resemble God in their possession of a rational soul—otherwise the commandment would have been “Honour thy father and mother—and everyone else with a rational soul.”
You wrote:
“Your argument is flawed.”
Actually It’s not flawed at all.
“Had God NOT created us in His image and likeness, would we not still owe him honour?”
If we were not created in His image and likeness, we would not be ABLE to give Him honor.
“We honour our parents because, like God, they participated in our creation, not because they resemble God in their possession of a rational soul—otherwise the commandment would have been “Honour thy father and mother—and everyone else with a rational soul.””
No. If they didn’t posssess a rational soul they could not receive honor from us nor could we give them honor. We don’t honor animals. If they didn’t have a rational soul, if they were not created in the image and likeness of God, we could not honor them, nor could they receive honor.
I noticed how you skipped right over the fact that “honor” is really “glorify”. Figures. How can we glorify animals? Irrational, stupid animals?
There’s no flaw in that argument. None.
It takes a degree of faith (in God) to believe that God created us in His image but it takes a giant leap of faith (in your own logic and reasoning) that you went from a worm to a computor hacker...Albeit denying the words of God in the process...
God says He made us in His image, after our kind...To deny Gods words is to deny God...You might want to check into what God says about folks that deny God...
In my opinion, evolution between species is just bad science. There is no evidence for it and the better we understand genetics the less plausible the theory of random evolution becomes.
As to “compatible”, well, sure. If it pleased God to make the creatures through random mutations, then he made them that way. In fact, the only explanation of the distinctive species and the punctuated evolution that supposedly produced them is divine activity and not chance.
No one who knows anything about evolution thinks it always involves advancement or progress.
George Orwell meets the Vatican.
Personally I prefer the Neener Titles. We don't try to pretend that they mean anything.
LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*
“We don’t [glorify] animals...”
First of all, you don’t get to parse word choice in Scripture if you’re making a natural law argument.
Assuming you indeed want to argue that Adam would have violated Exodus 20:12 if he had paid any “glory” to his pre-human progenitors, you must show why “kabad” in Scripture cannot be either rendered to or received by anything without a rational soul.
A claim is not an argument.
You wrote:
“First of all, you don’t get to parse word choice in Scripture if you’re making a natural law argument.”
As I expected, you can’t deal with the argument so you avoid dealing with it head on and just complain. The ten commandments are reflective of the Natural Law. Don’t like that? Too bad. That’s the way it is.
And again, you still have not dealt with what the word “honor” actually means. Deal with it.
“Assuming you indeed want to argue that Adam would have violated Exodus 20:12 if he had paid any “glory” to his pre-human progenitors, you must show why “kabad” in Scripture cannot be either rendered to or received by anything without a rational soul.”
No. The burden is all yours. The Natural Law doesn’t change nor did it come into existence with the Ten Commandments. You are being deliberately anachronistic by insisting that I argue something I never argued. I never said Adam violated Exodus 20:12. Honoring of parents was Natural Law BEFORE the Ten Commandments. Rather than deal with that FACT you must create straw men?
If our earliest ancestors didn’t posssess a rational soul they could not receive honor from us nor could we give them honor. We don’t honor animals. If they didn’t have a rational soul, if they were not created in the image and likeness of God, we could not honor them, nor could they receive honor.
You refuse to deal with those obvious points.
“A claim is not an argument.”
Then stop making claims. Stop implying evolution is true without evidence. Stop implying that Natural Law came about ONLY WITH the Ten Commandments. Stop saying that I claimed Adam violated Exodus 20 when I talked about Natural Law.
Either make an argument honestly and stop inventing straw men, or move on.
The title means something.
It might help if you actually researched something.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm
It’s increasingly hard to hack through the dishonesty of your replies.
You demand that I accept that natural law mandates the glorification of parents, and that pre-human parents, because of their lack of a rational soul, were incapable of being glorified.
You need to show why the Hebrew “kabad,” which you claim can only be accorded to beings with rational souls is the necessary verb to describe the obligation natural law demands offspring render to their parents, and then you need to show why indeed “kabad” can only be rendered to rational souls.
You keep saying people don’t honor animals: why do breeder’s award the “Horse of the Year” trophy? Why was Comanche buried with full military honors by the U.S. Cavalry?
YOU may not honor animals, but you have to show, contrary to demonstrated practice, why it is not possible for anyone to do so.
Like I care?
“And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
- Jesus, Mark 10
“from the beginning of creation...”
... not several billion years after.
You wrote:
“It’s increasingly hard to hack through the dishonesty of your replies.”
There is no dishonesty in any of my replies. You, however, create straw men. Who’s being dishonest?
“You demand that I accept that natural law mandates the glorification of parents, and that pre-human parents, because of their lack of a rational soul, were incapable of being glorified.”
Essentially, yes.
“You need to show why the Hebrew “kabad,” which you claim can only be accorded to beings with rational souls is the necessary verb to describe the obligation natural law demands offspring render to their parents, and then you need to show why indeed “kabad” can only be rendered to rational souls.”
No, actually I don’t need to show that at all. It is incumbent upon you to show that animals can receive honor. The reason for this is simple: we all know, and have always known, that people can be honored. Does any Jew or Christian believe animals can be honored by man?
“You keep saying people don’t honor animals: why do breeder’s award the “Horse of the Year” trophy?”
And now we see how low you’ll go. Not only will you create straw men, but you’ll deliberately confuse entirely different uses of the word or idea of honor? Do you think “honoring” a beer for taste is the same as honoring parents according to the Natural Law? No, I really don’t believe that you do. If you do, please actually say, “I believe honoring a bull at the state fair is the same thing as God intended in the honoring parents in the Natural Law.”
“Why was Comanche buried with full military honors by the U.S. Cavalry?”
Again, do you really believe honoring a horse that survived a battle is the same thing as God intended in the honoring of parents in the Natural Law? If you do, then no wonder you believe in evolution. You think animals and people are the same.
“YOU may not honor animals, but you have to show, contrary to demonstrated practice, why it is not possible for anyone to do so.”
No, I don’t. And I don’t simply because even you don’t believe that honoring Comanche is the same thing as a son honoring his father according to the Natural Law.
If you do believe that honoring a horse is the same thing as a son honoring his father according to the Natural Law then please say so. I need not say much after that. Your comment will come across as so irrational that the debate need not go any further.
You wrote:
“Like I care?”
No, you don’t. That’s exactly my point. You don’t care about the truth. All you care about is mocking things you know nothing about.
Let's take a look at this article's source (from the Vatican):
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
VATICAN CITY, 10 FEB 2009 (VIS) - In the Holy See Press Office this morning, the presentation took place of an international conference entitled: "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after 'The Origin of Species'". The event is due to take place in Rome from 3 to 7 March.
The congress has been jointly organised by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, U.S.A., under the patronage of the Pontifical Council for Culture and as part of the STOQ Project (Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest).
Participating in today's press conference were Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture and president of the Committee of Honour of the congress; Fr. Marc Leclerc S.J., professor of the philosophy of nature at the Gregorian University and director of the congress; Fr. Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, professor of fundamental theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, and Saverio Forestiero, professor of zoology at Rome's Torvergata University and a member of the organising committee.
Archbishop Ravasi pointed out that the forthcoming congress responds to the need "to re-establish dialogue between science and faith, because neither of them can fully resolve the mystery of human beings and the universe".
For his part Fr. Leclerc explained that the congress will be divided into nine sessions, focusing on "the essential facts upon which the theory of evolution rests, facts associated with palaeontology and molecular biology; ... the scientific study of the mechanisms of evolution, ... and what science has to say about the origin of human beings". Attention will also be given to "the great anthropological questions concerning evolution, ... and the rational implications of the theory for the epistemological and metaphysical fields and for the philosophy of nature". Finally, he said, "there will be two theological sessions to study evolution from the point of view of Christian faith, on the basis of a correct exegesis of the biblical texts that mention the creation, and of the reception of the theory of evolution by the Church".
Saverio Forastiero observed that "the relative fluidity of contemporary evolutionary theory is largely due to a series of discoveries made in the last quarter of a century, discoveries which require the synthetic theory to be reconfigured and could lead to a theory of evolution of the third generation".
"It is my view", he went on, "that this congress represents an opportunity, neither propagandistic nor apologetic, for scientists, philosophers and theologians to meet and discuss the fundamental questions raised by biological evolution - which is assumed and discussed as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt - in order to examine its manifestations and causal mechanisms, and to analyse the impact and quality of the explanatory theories thus far proposed".
For his part, Fr. Tanzella-Nitti highlighted how "from the perspective of Christian theology, biological evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. ... None of the evolutionary mechanisms opposes the affirmation that God wanted - in other words, created - man. Neither is this opposed by the casual (causal) nature of the many events that happened during the slow development of life, as long as the recourse to chance remains a simple scientific reading of phenomena".
"I hope", he went on, "that the natural sciences may be used by theology as a positive informational resource, and not just seen as a source of problems. ... I do not believe biological evolution is possible in a materialist world, without information, without direction, without a plan. In a created world, the role of theology is precisely that of talking to us about nature and the meaning it has, of the Logos which, as Benedict XVI likes to say, is the uncreated foundation of all things and of history".
OP/CONGRESS EVOLUTION/RAVASIVIS 090210 (640)
If you think about some of the scientific information that has come out in recent years. For example, take a look at this "Answers in Genesis" article about "mitochondrial Eve"
The Church has long held that authentic science will not be in conflict with the Word of God. If you think about that assertion, it has to be true. Science explains God's physical creation. If it authentically and accurately explains that creation, it simply can't be in dispute with God's Word. This is not to say that there isn't junk science, which explains nothing. This is not to say that authentic science cannot be used to achieve immoral purposes (e.g., a knowledge of genetics being immorally used to support cloning). This is also not to say that the understanding of God's Word may not be accurate, either. (I say the following not to cause an argument, but to illustrate a point) For example, look at all the different branches of Protestantism and their different ways of interpreting and applying the Scriptures -- while most may be in agreement on the "essentials," there was enough disagreement on "peripherals" to cause multiple denominational splits. (Not to say that Catholics are necessarily better -- you've got divisions like crazy there, too...the difference is that the schismatic (denominational) splits don't happen as much -- they stay under the same tent and argue like mad)
The point is that from reading the above press release and this CNA article on the subject
Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Humani Generis illustrates succinctly the Church's attitude toward the subject:
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
I hope the above helps with your understanding. The Torygraph gets a lot right, but it should always be fact-checked when talking about the Catholic Church.
You may not agree with the argument I present (and I don't care if you don't); I just wanted to make sure you had a good, accurate understanding, regardless of your agreement or not.
I only mock things that are in need of mocking.
The difference is one of degree, not of kind. To respect in the Hebrew sense of “kabad” means to make weighty and signficant, in either a good or bad way. There’s no reason, other than your bald assertion, that people cannot accord weight to prerational animals, or even to inanimate objects charged with moral significance—as in “glorifying the Cross.”
The fact that you don’t think people should do so is not dispositive of the issue.
You wrote:
“The difference is one of degree, not of kind. To respect in the Hebrew sense of “kabad” means to make weighty and signficant, in either a good or bad way. There’s no reason, other than your bald assertion, that people cannot accord weight to prerational animals, or even to inanimate objects charged with moral significance—as in “glorifying the Cross.””
No. Can a rational creature glorify an irrational one and live in accordance with the Natural Law? No. Part of honoring would include obedience. Can a rational creature obey an irrational creature and live in accordance with the Natural Law? No.
“The fact that you don’t think people should do so is not dispositive of the issue.”
The fact that you insist honoring a horse is the same thing as a son honoring his father is proof you’ve already lost this debate.
You can’t say that “kabad” is the operative verb, and then shrink from it’s actual meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.