Posted on 07/22/2009 10:39:38 PM PDT by bdeaner
If the universe was fully formed 5769 years ago . . . The receptors in our eyes would have been placed behind the retina, rather than in front of it.
G-d couldn't have created Adam with receptors in front of his retina? What, it was against the law?
If the universe was fully formed 5769 years ago, fully formed, we wouldn't have fossils of pre-historic creatures who no longer exist in evidence in the fossil record.
Why wouldn't we? Animals become extinct all the time. And I almost hesitate to bring up the Mabbul (Flood) because I know you'll only ridicule the idea, but a catastrophe of that magnitude, the like of which had never been known and never will be again (and the nature of which most chr*stians are not knowledgeable of) could not have but had some sort of effect on the earth.
Are you familiar with your co-religionist Guy Berthault's experiments with stratigraphy, btw?
We would not be able to see many of the stars we are currently able to see in the night sky, because the light would not have had time to reach us from their current location . . . Etc etc
Again, thank you for answering this question. How fast do you think the speed of light was during the Creation/Formation process? Seeing as how my position is that such things were themselves in the process of being created and didn't really "gel" until after the Dispersion from Babel, aren't you simply (again) assuming the uniformity of the speed of light from the first instant of Creation merely because you want to?
Geez, how cranky can one person be? Have a beer and relax. No need for all the histrionics.
I don't drink. And my histrionics, believe it or not, would be less severe if you were more consistent. It is your determination to subject the words of Genesis to the judgment of science while absolutely insisting science has no right to sit in judgment on such things as the alleged resurrection of J*sus and transubstantiation that rouses my ire.
It is also an ancient tradition to believe the earth is the center of the universe. Stupid ideas should be rejected once we realize how stupid they are, i.e. when evidence has proven them to be false.
Again, are you willing to submit everything you believe, and not just the events from the Hebrew Bible, to the judgment of science? I have read at least once on this forum that it is absolutely impossible for the Israelites to have actually been slaves in Egypt. Where are you going to draw the line? The only alternative to being a consistent dogmatist such as myself and a consistent denier like Richard Dawkins is to be an inconsistent dogmatist. And for your information, the atheists don't respect you inconsistent dogmatists either. And I don't blame them.
Nothing in Genesis said Adam had the body of a 20-year-old at the time of his creation. Just says he was born of dust.
Well, you have to remember that I am turning to Oral Tradition to enlighten the events described.
Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). There's nothing about triplets, or numbers of acts of intercourse in Genesis. Do you have a chapter and verse?
I thought only "brain-dead Bibliolators" (in the words of one Catholic FReeper) had to have a "chapter and verse" for what they believed?
Here are the details as elucidated by Jewish Tradition, as I understand them:
G-d brought all the animals to Adam so he could find an `ezer kenegdo ("helpmeet"). Adam co-habited with all the animals (he "knew" them, enabling him to give their Hebrew names, since a thing's Hebrew name, unlike its name in any other language, corresponds to its inner reality) but did not find this "helpmeet" (as G-d knew he wouldn't). After Eve had been peeled off of him he tried it with her and succeeded (leading to his exclamation of "Zo't hapa`am!" ("This time!"). The first act of intercourse produced Cain and a twin sister (the sister he married) while the second produced Abel and two sisters. One of the things Cain and Abel quarreled about was who got the "extra" sister. Cain said as the firstborn, she belonged to him. Abel said since she was born with him, she was hers. Incidentally, as you can see, incest was not at this time forbidden. It was forbidden later in human history when it was no longer necessary, just as bestiality was not forbidden until after the creation of Eve.
As I have stated in previous posts, the "multiplication" of Eve's "conception" ("Harbah 'arbeh . . . heronekh") refers to the lengthening of the human gestation period in punishment for the sin in the Garden.
Do you at least understand, if you do not accept, what I have written here? If you want specific references I can get my copy of Rabbi Yishai Chasidah's 'Ishey HaTanakh which contains all the Traditional information about all the Biblical figures together with where the information is found.
As many times as necessary for it to make sense, or until such time that one or both of us give up. I can't answer your question if I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I could give a rat's ear about what Jewish tradition says about how many times Adam and Eve had intercourse. I don't take it as a history book. Why does it matter to you? In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make?
It matters because the Torah was written directly by G-d Himself. It is not merely "Divinely inspired." It pre-existed the world by 974 generations and in fact served as the foundation, the blueprint, the DNA--what you chr*stians call the "logos"--of the universe. It is so far from being a mere list of didactic fables that you can't conceive it. And as I said before, yes, there are places where it is not literal, but this is determined by immemorial Tradition, not "modern scholarship."
And it matters when someone who says the Torah is didactic mythology blasphemously and impiously insists that some other "holy book" is "literally true."
And it matters because of my own personal experience with Catholicism, but I don't have time to write a biography and you don't have time to read one.
No, the formation of the universe is a legitimate field of scientific endeavour. The creation of it is not. You conflate the two. That's your problem.
I am in awe of you. You have just done something I have been wracking my mind to try to do and never succeeded. You have stated succinctly what the difference is between "theistic evolution" and YEC. Absolutely. The "formation" of the universe was part of its Creation. It took place altogether outside the laws of nature, which didn't gel until Day Six and didn't gel to their current state until the Dispersion. This is the unbridgeable gulf between us. One of us insists literal truth is found in the Torah, the other in retrojecting the current laws of nature into the formation of the universe. My version makes G-d a liar (chas veshalom!) to you because you count on science to tell you how the universe and everything in it was initially formed, which I insist is a matter for Theology and totally outside the purview of science. To you G-d would "never do this to us." And you refuse to see the similar problem if your method of learning about the formation of the universe is correct and mine is not. Either way, one method is "literal" and the other less than literal. One is direct knowledge and the other is indirect knowledge. I insist that the Torah is the direct knowledge while you insist the "book of nature" is, leaving the Torah didactic Theological mythology.
I am quite certain you think your version--that science tells us "what actually happened" during the formation of the universe while the Torah is merely didactic parables--is without any problems at all. That is because you absolutely refuse to grant that turning the Torah into a book of purely "symbolic truth" raises the same problem as what I say about science and the formation of the universe. But it's true. In one of these two books, G-d was "literal." In one of these two books we learn somewhat about "what actually happened." Our split is over which of these two books is the "literal" one. I say the Torah, you say the "book of nature."
No Mr. Straw Man. Their gift of immortality, taught St. Augustine, and consistent with Trent, should be understood as the possibility of not dying, not the impossibility of dying. Thus, from the very beginning, they were potentially corruptible in their being.
Forgive me. The implication of your earlier post that Adam and Eve's immortality was only "spiritual" like the immortality of the baptized chr*stian who is in a "state of grace." But how do you square this immortality of Adam and Eve with the "facts" of evolution?
I’m siding with Zionist Conspirator on this one. I think any Christian who DOGMATICALLY sides with theistic evolution is making a serious philosophical error.
By the way, ZC, I and a friend talked to a very new priest today (I think he is 27 years old). My friend asked him about creation vs. evolution and what he believed. The priest said he wished there was a clearer modern definition from the Church. I told him that I was a “fundamentalist” on the issue until told otherwise by the Church and he believed the same way. It was nice to here that a young priest out there still embraced creationism.
Can someone explain to me, the difference between 'church tradition' and 'Oral tradition'?
If neither one can be verified through scripture, how can one be correct and the other wrong?
Can someone explain to me, the difference between 'church tradition' and 'Oral tradition'?
If neither one can be verified through scripture, how can one be correct and the other wrong?
Jewish Tradition comes from G-d via Moses on Mt. Sinai. the traditions of the chr*stian churches (and all other religions) are false.
It's quite simple, really.
Most of what G-d handed down to Moses is recorded in the Torah. I have no problem with that. I'm curious though about those things that are NOT in the Torah, like this:
G-d brought all the animals to Adam so he could find an `ezer kenegdo ("helpmeet"). Adam co-habited with all the animals (he "knew" them, enabling him to give their Hebrew names, since a thing's Hebrew name, unlike its name in any other language, corresponds to its inner reality) but did not find this "helpmeet" (as G-d knew he wouldn't). After Eve had been peeled off of him he tried it with her and succeeded (leading to his exclamation of "Zo't hapa`am!" ("This time!"). The first act of intercourse produced Cain and a twin sister (the sister he married) while the second produced Abel and two sisters. One of the things Cain and Abel quarreled about was who got the "extra" sister. Cain said as the firstborn, she belonged to him. Abel said since she was born with him, she was hers. Incidentally, as you can see, incest was not at this time forbidden. It was forbidden later in human history when it was no longer necessary, just as bestiality was not forbidden until after the creation of Eve.
Are you using 'knew' as in Adam knew Eve? Are you saying that Adam had sex with the animals?
I have elaborated on this time and time again, evidently to be conveniently ignored by you because it goes against your prejudices. According to the Talmud Adam and Eve on the day they were created "went down as two and rose as seven." They had two acts of sexual intercourse, the first of which produced Cain and a twin sister and the second of which produced Abel and two "triplet" sisters. G-d told Eve "Harbah 'arbeh `itztzevonekh veheronekh" ("I will multiply your pain and your conception"), meaning that the gestation period was increased to nine months. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
Imho, this is no different than the church tradition of Mary being assumpted into Heaven, or any number of other church claims.
The Torah contains everything, but mostly at a very, very deep level. Otherwise the vast majority of things G-d commanded Moses is not found in the Written Torah at all. There is an Oral Torah as well as a Written Torah.
The Torah commands that animals be slaughtered in a certain way but doesn't explain what the way is. It commands that certain offerings be "heaved" but doesn't explain what this means. Other sacrifices are commanded to be "waved" and--sure enough--it doesn't tell just what the "waving" consists of. As a matter of fact, in the instillation ritual of Aaron and his sons, they were themselves "waved." What does that mean? The Written Torah doesn't say.
Furthermore the Written Torah contains only consonants. There are no vowels and no punctuation. You know where the vowels and punctuation are found? That's right, the Oral Torah! The Oral Torah tells just how each word in the Torah is "pointed" (with vowels) and punctuated. And while it's true that printed Hebrew Bibles are printed with the vowels, this is no different ultimately from printing a Traditional commentary along with the text. The vowels and punctuation are still part of the Oral Torah. The Torah Scrolls read in synagogues have no vowels or punctuation.
In worship services the Torah reading can only be from a kosher Torah Scroll . . . never a printed book. Where do these scrolls come from? They are written by scribes. The manner of their writing is governed by innumerable minute laws that govern the sizes of the letters, the "crowns" of the letters, even sizes of the spaces between the letters! If even one mistake is made the Scroll cannot be used and must be buried reverently in a Jewish cemetery. And do you know where these innumerable rules for the writing of Torah Scrolls is found? That's right again, in the Oral Torah!
Now please think about this. You want to base everything on what is written in the Written Torah. Yet the only reason we have a Written Torah at all is because the Oral Torah preserves all the rules and regulations for writing a Torah Scroll correctly, as well as how it is to be vocalized and punctuated (and again, these marks may not be written in the Torah Scroll).
Does this make it easier to understand?
Imho, this is no different than the church tradition of Mary being assumpted into Heaven, or any number of other church claims.
There is one difference . . . one is true and one isn't. It's no different than the fact that the chr*stians have a false "holy book" in no way nullifies the fact that Israel has a true Holy Book. The fact that false religions have false "traditions" discredits authentic Tradition no more than the fact that false religions have false "scriptures" discredits the idea that there are true Scriptures.
Are you using 'knew' as in Adam knew Eve? Are you saying that Adam had sex with the animals?
The Torah commands that animals be slaughtered in a certain way but doesn't explain what the way is.
Maybe because animal sacrifice wasn't meant to be?
Jeremiah 7
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
Jeremiah 8:7-9 (Amplified Bible)
7 [Even the migratory birds are punctual to their seasons.] Yes, the stork [excelling in the great height of her flight] in the heavens knows her appointed times [of migration], and the turtledove, the swallow, and the crane observe the time of their return. But My people do not know the law of the Lord [which the lower animals instinctively recognize in so far as it applies to them].
8 How can you say, We are wise, and we have the written law of the Lord [and are learned in its language and teachings]? Behold, the truth is, the lying pen of the scribes has made of the law a falsehood (a mere code of ceremonial observances).(A)
9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken [captive]. Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom and broad, full intelligence is in them?
Hosea 6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Micah 6
6 'Wherewith shall I come before YHWH, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?
7 Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'
8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what YHWH doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.
Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to G-d for atonement than a blood sacrifice. I think there is good indication that sacrifices were never meant to be.
Jeremiah 31:2 Thus saith YHWH: the people that were left of the sword have found grace in the wilderness, even Israel, when I go to cause him to rest.
God promises the descendants of Israel who, through captivity, exile, and intermarriage with Gentiles became assimilated and inculturated Gentiles today that they will find "grace in the wilderness".
The exile mentioned in Isaiah
From the JPS (1917) Jewish Bible Tanakh
8 In full measure, when Thou sendest her away, Thou dost contend with her; He hath removed her with His rough blast in the day of the east wind.
9 Therefore by this shall the iniquity of Jacob be expiated, and this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in pieces, so that the Asherim and the sun-images shall rise no more.
Their exile was their atonement. No bloodletting.
Or do you think it was other things that the scribes were lying about?
I think there were two different ideologies being presented in the Hebrew Scriptures. One that promoted animal sacrifice, the other didn't. I think they brought the animal sacrifice back with them when they left their pagan captivity. JMO
Ecclesiastes 3:19 (King James Version)
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
My understanding is that in the World To Come that there will be NO animal sacrifices, only grain offerings. What is your understanding on this?
I thought I made that clear. Please forgive me for trying to say it tastefully.
The Torah commands that animals be slaughtered in a certain way but doesn't explain what the way is.
Maybe because animal sacrifice wasn't meant to be?
First, the slaughter I mentioned wasn't for sacrifices but for eating. And second, as I have stated I don't know how many times on this forum to I don't know how many people, the Torah is the Supreme Revelation. It is the Ultimate Revelation. It was written by G-d Himself. The Prophetic books were written on a lower level (the spirit of Prophecy) and the Ketuvim on a still lower level ("Divine inspiration"). But the Torah judges all and is judged by none.
No prophet can contradict the Torah. If he had is book would never have been canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly. Again, in order to understand these issues you must accept the authentic interpretation of the Torah Sages.
You wrote:
“Who dogmatically sided with theistic evolution in this conversation?”
You seem rather dogmatic about it. If you are not dogmatic about it, then you should be able to say: “I could be completely wrong about it and everything may have, in fact, happened as described in Genesis.”
Can you say that?
If you can’t, then you would seem to be leaning more toward a dogmatic view of things as if it had already been defined by the Church.
I say you’re dogmatic about it because of lines like this:
“It is also an ancient tradition to believe the earth is the center of the universe. Stupid ideas should be rejected once we realize how stupid they are, i.e. when evidence has proven them to be false.”
I don’t believe you think only geocentrism is stupid. You seem to be lumping creation in with geocentrism. Sounds rather dogmatic to me: “Stupid ideas should be rejected once we realize how stupid they are, i.e. when evidence has proven them to be false.”
And please remember, we’re just talking here. I’m not trying to upset anyone.
You wrote:
“I am producing empirical arguments, based on hypothetico-deductive logic, not dogmatic arguments, which are professions of faith.”
I never said you were producing dogmatic arguments. I never even said you were making a profession of faith. I said:
“I think any Christian who DOGMATICALLY sides with theistic evolution is making a serious philosophical error.”
What I said still stands. You have DOGMATICALLY sided with theistic evolution. I am not saying that you have no argument. I am not saying you have no evidence. I am saying you have DOGMATICALLY sided with theistic evolution. You assume your evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. You are strident in your views while denouncing the stridency of those who hold opposing views. That all sounds rather dogmatic to me.
“No, you misinterpreted what I said. The heliocentric view of the universe was rejected for a long time and alternative evidence scrutinized mainly for theological reasons, when in fact it should have been taken more seriously — and as a result, we had an embarrassing episode with Galileo that continues to plague the Church.”
1) I’m not embarrassed in the least by the Galileo ‘episode’. There’s really no reason why any Catholic should be when one considers the time and culture involved.
2) “...for theological reasons, when in fact it should have been taken more seriously...” Makes no sense as a comment. I can’t think of much of anything on this earth as more serious than the inquisition and a debate over issues of scripture and science. Again, you’re acting rather dogmatically. You are assuming a thing is not taken “seriously” unless it is handled as modern empirical scientists would handle it. I quess Aristotle and Aquinas were not serious men?
“We should learn from the past, and assure that we do not make the same mistake now or in the future. The damage to the Church would be immense.”
What mistake is the Church making? Since the Church is infallible, and as a Catholic you must believe it is, what mistake in its teaching will it ever make? And in regard to creation exactly what mistake could I ever make that would in any way damage my soul? I can be as literal as I want about Genesis and it would in no way hurt my soul. It is only the doubters in creation and supporters of evolution who tend to hold beliefs that damage souls. And you and I can be as wrong as all get out and it would not harm the Church in the least. We are not the Church. We are merely members of her.
You wrote:
“What part of “I would gladly dispense with my support for any of the particular views...,” do you not understand?”
That isn’t the issue with “dogmatically”. Saying you’ll dispense with your current view when evidence shows otherwise, does not in any way change the fact that you NOW dogmatically hold a view that is unproven, by definition unprovable, goes against all ancient and even much more recent tradition in the Church and also carries with dangers to the soul with all of its philosophical baggage.
As I said before, “You seem rather dogmatic about it. If you are not dogmatic about it, then you should be able to say: “I could be completely wrong about it and everything may have, in fact, happened as described in Genesis.””
I’ve noticed that you say, “If one can produce a body of empirical evidence that supports an incompatible point of view, I would gladly dispense with my support for any of the particular views I have stated here and elsewhere.”
Won’t you don’t say is, “I could be completely wrong about it and everything may have, in fact, happened as described in Genesis.”
Those are two very different statements.
You wrote:
“The Church made mistakes in its handling of Galileo — mistakes of which were not part of the infallible teachings of the Church.”
I always thought it was one tribunal that made a mistake in handling Galileo. I never took that tribunal to be the Church so much as a tribunal of men.
“(Be careful not to confuse infallible Ex cathedraa teachings with the false idea that anything done by the Church is infallible, which is a slippery slope if there ever was one).”
I never made such confusions. I never do.
“The consequence of those mistakes have hurt the Church, as Pope John Paul II has acknowledged, because they created opportunities for the opponents of the Church to create the appearance that the Church was opposed to science when in fact, on the contrary, the Catholic teaching on scripture forms the very foundation for science as we know it.”
I don’t believe so. No matter what the Church does, no matter what churchmen do, the enemies of the Church will make hay of it. Notice, Protestants opposed Copernicus and Galileo both. Does anyone remember that today? Very few people. Protestants would be shocked to learn that their sects so opposed science when they have always been taught otherwise.
I know Dave Armstrong has written about this. Here is something just about the strictly religious persecution on the part of Protestants: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html
You wrote:
“Your statement seems heretical to me, unless I am reading it incorrectly.”
Wow. So this is how it goes? A Catholic disagrees with your dogmatically holding to evolution and that makes him a heretic? Have you, yourself, not said we are allowed to hold either belief? And yet, now, you are implying that someone who holds to what I hold to is in fact a heretic? Incredible.
“See post #94. Your statement is not compatible with those statements by the Magisterium. Seems to me my soul is not the one in danger, but yours is. Nothing I have said is heretical, but your statement sure seems to be.”
Nope. Nothing I said is remotely heretical. It is obvious what is going on here.
1) You insist we can hold either belief.
2) While you claim we can hold either belief, you resort to labelling as heretical anyone who in fact, holds to the old, traditional beliefs.
3) You do this without apparently seeing the inherent contradiction of your own actions. How can someone be a heretic in your opinion for doing what you claimed was in fact Church teaching (i.e. holding either opinion)?
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.