Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 04/23/2011 8:37:58 PM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn't a random product of evolution.
Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it."
"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Indigenous peoples? Anyway, intellectual dishonesty is no stranger to humanity.
Maybe you are. Tell me what was written above the head of Jesus on the Cross and from what source. When you are done, would you do me the favour of telling me the events of Easter morning - ie who did what and when and from what source? Paul cannot even get his story straight in his two tellings of his conversion in Acts. If you do not read the Bible with the guidance of the Church directed by the Holy Spirit, why then, you may come up with any interpretation that humans can conceive of.
Mark, if the Bible was written through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't that mean that the stories by different authors would be identical, or at least not conflicting, and therefore eliminate the need for an intermediate (human) "interpreter"?
Surely God did not reveal to every biblical author a slightly different narrative, such as two genesis accounts, or how many women and which ones were at the empty tomb, were there angels, or one angel or simply a man talking to them, or in Paul's story of conversion who heard and saw what, or similar inconsistencies.
Nor would God have spoken to Nicodemus in Greek using vague hyperboles of questionable pun value (is it "from above", or is it "again"?) Neither would God (I hope) deliberately reveal physical or factual inconsistencies with the real world, such as "the smallest seed, the sun "standing" still,..." or that bats are fowl.
After all, the first three Gospels that were written (long before John's) were an attempt at "harmonization" (synopsis), so as to "get the story right". Here different authors, "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" (all anonymous), copy verbatim from each other — not only verses, but whole paragraphs.
Why would "Matthew", supposedly an eyewitness compared to "Mark" and "Luke", copy from "Mark" (since his is the oldest)and why did the official interpreter not know that "Matthew's" is not first? What else did the interpreter not know?
I thunk it boils down to this: how factual is the evolution narrative and does it conflict with the facticity of the Bible narrative? To answer this, we would have to know what each story says. Do we? If so, do we know the whole story or not? How do we acquire such knowledge? Is it with our power to do so?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There is an old book by Justin Martyr that dates to the 2nd Century, which shows the thinking of a Philosopher who became a Christian. Get ahold of it and read it. Natural theology has a long history in the Church, and its development can in fact be traced to Alexandrian Judaism, so it is not only Christianity but Judaism that deals with the same sort of questions that Plato and Aristotle wrote about. St.Augustine, the greatest of the Latin Farthers was a follower of Plotinus, the neo-platonist, and the shift in his thinking as he converted to Christianity is rather subtle. St, Thomas Aquinas, who was a stduent of both Augusdtine and Aristotle--and the Bible--was a powerful reasoner. As Lord Russell says, once you accept Thomas' premises, you are forced to share his conclusions. So again, what do you mean by reason?
Evolution is a pretty broad subject. But the Big Bang is not included with in it. And if true, it is certainly an example of instantaneous creation. But what you are talking about is “old”universe vs.”new” universe. That question seems to be pretty much settled by the theory surrounding radioactivity, and Copernican theory, for that matter. The universe seems to be a very big, very old place. And very unstable.
That's because it's a digital simulation and starts to go to wire frame around the edges instead of using processing power where we can't directly observe it anyway. Occasionally, it loses track of where the wire frame ends and then screws up the redrawing, that's what causes the instability.
If you need any more bizarre information about the universe, just ask and I'll open the appropriate envelope with the info. Naturally, the pages in the envelopes are blank until you open the envelopes.
I think of randomness as a type of creative force, but to say that everything evolution produces is entirely random is a fallacy. I do believe it is part of the process though.
And we as intelligent beings use randomness as the best way to solve some very difficult problems.
Or else it means that the authors were dumber than Oprah talking to Obama and it took the Church to reconcile what they had written.
Nor would God have spoken to Nicodemus in Greek using vague hyperboles of questionable pun value (is it "from above", or is it "again"?) Neither would God (I hope) deliberately reveal physical or factual inconsistencies with the real world, such as "the smallest seed, the sun "standing" still,..." or that bats are fowl.
Or maybe Nicodemus was on the Oprah show of 2000 years ago, and it took the Church to figure out what really was happening.
Why would "Matthew", supposedly an eyewitness compared to "Mark" and "Luke", copy from "Mark" (since his is the oldest)and why did the official interpreter not know that "Matthew's" is not first? What else did the interpreter not know?
A bunch, obviously. If we do not believe the Church, why then, we may believe in nothing, or else whatever we come up with in the morning between waking and breakfast. Did the Church cover up the equivalent of Joseph Smith's 'revelation' or did they simply gloss over the poorly written and harmonized Gospel of Jesus, as written by the silt of the earth? I'm betting on the silt. Fishermen and similar. Not the slick Willies of the Pharisees. No wonder that the Church had to reconcile the accounts.
Why would God pick someone like that to write down his own words and thoughts, all too well knowing the stories will come out scrambled? This just doesn't compute. We are talking an all-knowing, all-powerful God who is always somehow ends up behind the curve. Something is seriously amiss here, imo.
Take for instance the Fall. Was that a surprise or a plan? What about God's reaction in Gen 6:6? Or look at all the trouble he went through getting his own people to stay true to him? Or the price that had to be paid (crucifixion!) to fix things. He is constantly fixing...
And now you tell matter-of-factly that he dictated his words to a bunch of people who (he should have known) would scramble the message, which will require centuries of fixing? After all that how can this be an all-seeing, all-knowing perfect deity???
I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know." [Gen 18:12]
God has to come down (sic) and see if they had done something and only then he will know! So, he then reveals his secrets to a bunch of dumb fishermen who can't get the story right, only so the Church can interpret what's true as an afterthought, so that after a great deal of chewing, manipulation, changing, editing, choreography, etc. we may "know" what God really said or meant!? You can't be serious, Mark.
If we do not believe the Church, why then, we may believe in nothing, or else whatever we come up with in the morning between waking and breakfast
Well, this is a problem we encounter we people in whom we lose trust. Once you see through them and see they are nto what they amde themsleves out to be, you lose faith in them. And, once you see through and lose faith in man-made religions we can't believe anything else.
Does that mean there is no God (whatever God may be)? Of course not! It simply means God is not as man created him in his fancy.
who is always = who always
Well, look at His audience.
Take for instance the Fall. Was that a surprise or a plan? What about God's reaction in Gen 6:6? Or look at all the trouble he went through getting his own people to stay true to him? Or the price that had to be paid (crucifixion!) to fix things. He is constantly fixing...
He definitely created a bunch of mindless invertebrates. So? That is His prerogative, is it not?
God has to come down (sic) and see if they had done something and only then he will know! So, he then reveals his secrets to a bunch of dumb fishermen who can't get the story right, only so the Church can interpret what's true as an afterthought, so that after a great deal of chewing, manipulation, changing, editing, choreography, etc. we may "know" what God really said or meant!? You can't be serious, Mark.
God does not have to live up to my standards, Kosta. I just have to live up to His.
Well, this is a problem we encounter we people in whom we lose trust. Once you see through them and see they are nto what they amde themsleves out to be, you lose faith in them. And, once you see through and lose faith in man-made religions we can't believe anything else.
I trust in Him and in the Church. I lost my Faith and then found it again. I don't expect Him to abide by my standards.
Does that mean there is no God (whatever God may be)? Of course not! It simply means God is not as man created him in his fancy.
Amen.
His audience is supposedly created in his image and likeness, Mark, andowed with reason. You would expect them to not be fumbling idiots who can't get their story straight, wouldn't you? And it still doens't epxlain a deity that's "behind the curve."
He definitely created a bunch of mindless invertebrates. So? That is His prerogative, is it not?
Who says that, Mark? Some anonymous writer or a bunch of copyists? And you believe them? I guess that's your prerogative.
God does not have to live up to my standards, Kosta. I just have to live up to His.
If you say so, Mark. But how do you know what God's standards are or which "holy book" to believe in?
His audience is supposedly created in his image and likeness, Mark, andowed with reason. You would expect them to not be fumbling idiots who can't get their story straight, wouldn't you? And it still doens't epxlain a deity that's "behind the curve."
I'm not sure that the deity is behind the curve, rather than the Scripture writers. And image? You know what funhouse mirrors look like.
He definitely created a bunch of mindless invertebrates. So? That is His prerogative, is it not?
Who says that, Mark? Some anonymous writer or a bunch of copyists? And you believe them? I guess that's your prerogative.
Yes it is. The rank of mankind includes the Sir Isaac Newtons and the Charles Mansons. It includes the Winston Churchills and the Lady Gagas. It includes Alexander the Great and Rod Blagojevich. Look around you at what the human race includes.
God does not have to live up to my standards, Kosta. I just have to live up to His.
If you say so, Mark. But how do you know what God's standards are or which "holy book" to believe in?
I don't know. I believe. Now that we have gotten past that, my beliefs are based upon the Church's current (and past) teachings on His standards. The Church has been pretty consistent for the last 1700 years on just about everything that relates to His standards, wouldn't you say?
“World was created Oct. 22 4004 BC.”
How so, Mark? Did the Fall happen or not? If so, was it God's will or not? From the Christian perspective, he dind't see it coming and spent thousands of years fixing it.
In Genesis 6:6 he regrets having created man. Was that an afterthought or is the Bible just plain wrong?
How does a perfect creator create a perfect world, and then let is slip under his feet?
And image? You know what funhouse mirrors look like.
You really think he created a caricature?
Look around you at what the human race includes.
The Bible and the Church say he created everything good.
Kosta: If you say so, Mark. But how do you know what God's standards are or which "holy book" to believe in?
Mark: I don't know. I believe.
Who decided what you should believe? You or someone/something else? If it's your choice, then you should know why you believe one "holy" book over another.
Now that we have gotten past that, my beliefs are based upon the Church's current (and past) teachings on His standards.
No, Mark, a belief can only be based on one's own choice, or on someone else's choice. Which is it?
The Church has been pretty consistent for the last 1700 years on just about everything that relates to His standards, wouldn't you say?
I am not sure about that. How about the procession of the Holy Spirit? How about the (un)created grace? How about on the Limbo? The Purgatory? The original sin? The Immaculate Conception? Papal infallibility? Christology? On the Canon? On salvation our side the Church, etc.?
our side = outside
How so, Mark? Did the Fall happen or not? If so, was it God's will or not? From the Christian perspective, he dind't see it coming and spent thousands of years fixing it.
In Genesis 6:6 he regrets having created man. Was that an afterthought or is the Bible just plain wrong?
How does a perfect creator create a perfect world, and then let is slip under his feet?
I think that we have several different things going on here. We have what God actually does, what He wants us to know is going on, and what we perceive is going on. All different. If God had wanted perfection, He would have created it; and most probably, would never have done it. He is perfection in Himself. Man is not perfect. God considers man the pinnacle of His Creation. Why?
You really think he created a caricature?
The Bible says image, not duplicate.
The Bible and the Church say he created everything good.
Who says He didn't?
Who decided what you should believe? You or someone/something else? If it's your choice, then you should know why you believe one "holy" book over another.
I believe in my beliefs. I don't know. I believe. Why? Probably for a whole bunch of reasons. But I think that it comes down to this: I know differential equations. I believe in God.
Now that we have gotten past that, my beliefs are based upon the Church's current (and past) teachings on His standards.
No, Mark, a belief can only be based on one's own choice, or on someone else's choice. Which is it?
That is not a statement/question based upon my statement. My beliefs are based upon the Church's teaching. Can I choose to disbelieve? Sure. I did for a while.
I am not sure about that. How about the procession of the Holy Spirit? How about the (un)created grace? How about on the Limbo? The Purgatory? The original sin? The Immaculate Conception? Papal infallibility? Christology? On the Canon? On salvation our side the Church, etc.?
What does the Greek or Polish peasant understand of the Church? From the ones that I know, they are better Catholics that I because they have the basic beliefs, and do not get much into the details, and concentrate on the Faith as a whole. How many theologians go off the rails because they get lost and sidetracked in minor details and lose sight of the Faith overall? The Three Hermits (thanks Kolo) is a very good short story which illustrates true faith.
Even my wife appreciates it.
He did create perfection and it includes giving man a free will to stray from it.
The perfection is perfect created love God has given to man with the ability to freely chose to follow perfection or choose not to
From Saint Thomas Aquinas...
That God is Universal Perfection AS all perfection and nobility is in a thing inasmuch as the thing is, so every defect is in a thing inasmuch as the thing in some manner is not. As then God has being in its totality, so not-being is totally removed from Him, because the measure in which a thing has being is the measure of its removal from not-being. Therefore all defect is absent from God: He is therefore universal perfection.
2. Everything imperfect must proceed from something perfect: therefore the First Being must be most perfect.
3. Everything is perfect inasmuch as it is in actuality; imperfect, inasmuch as it is in potentiality, with privation of actuality. That then which is nowise in potentiality, but is pure actuality, must be most perfect; and such is God.*
4. Nothing acts except inasmuch as it is in actuality: action therefore follows the measure of actuality in the agent. It is impossible therefore for any effect that is brought into being by action to be of a nobler actuality than is the actuality of the agent. It is possible though for the actuality of the effect to be less perfect than the actuality of the acting cause, inasmuch as action may be weakened on the part of the object to which it is terminated, or upon which it is spent. Now in the category of efficient causation everything is reducible ultimately to one cause, which is God, of whom are all things. Everything therefore that actually is in any other thing must be found in God much more eminently than in the thing itself; God then is most perfect.
Hence the answer given to Moses by the Lord, when he sought to see the divine face or glory: I will show thee all good (Exod. xxxiii, 19).
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.