Evolution Must Go
(11-28-2012, 03:06 PM)Hanno Wrote: Fair enough.  But as Catholics, we don't take the word of schismatics when they tell us a Church teaching isn't in the bible.  They don't think papal infallibility is in the bible either.  So what the Orthodox think is kind of irrelevant here.  St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, and there are bound to be various interpretations, but the final and ultimate arbiter of what he meant is Holy Mother Church.  Original Sin is a teaching of the Church.

Well, papal infallibility *isn't* in the Bible.  That's not to say that it's a false doctrine.  But it's definitely not in the Bible, at least, in any way that you can find without heavily reading a bias for it onto the text.

In general, traditional Catholics seem to heavily rely on eisegetical interpretations of certain passages of the Bible to support various uniquely Catholic doctrines.  So I don't bring up what the Orthodox say as if that has any bearing on whether a given Catholic doctrine is true or not, but just as a way of clarifying that when traditional Catholics say "it's in the Bible," they don't necessarily mean it in a way that is meaningful to anyone who is looking see what is inherently in the Bible on its own.  
Reply
(11-28-2012, 03:28 PM)Hanno Wrote: I don't know where you stand on the evolution question, FaithByProxy, but for Melkite, a special permission after the flood would entirely contradict the evolutionary scheme, which claims that the earliest humans were omnivorous hunter-gatherers, and therefore would've been eating meat long before the biblical flood!  The passage also seems to refer to Genesis 1:29, which says even all the animals were herbivores, which I'm sure Melkite doesn't take literally if he believes that saber-toothed tigers and Tyrannosauri preceded humans.  So why does he insist on the later passage?

Melkite?

The original point, though, was that animals were still subservient to humans: "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  Which is why it was no problem for Abel to be a shepherd or to sacrifice a lamb to God.  So I don't see why it would be any different for the post-lapsarian humans to enslave or ritually sacrifice (if not eat) the "unensouled humanoid creatures" that Axona and Melkite surmise lived among them.

No, I don't take it literally.  So, are you saying you believe that saber-toothed tigers and the various dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the first generations of mankind?  Do you believe they started off herbivorous?  I haven't looked much into it, are there fossils of carnivorous animal species that have been found with herbivorous sets of teeth?

If you have the time, would you mind writing a narrative of how you believe creation happened and how you would respond to the various things from modern scientific thought that seems to contradict the Bible?
Reply
(11-28-2012, 09:29 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: Excuse me but I work full time as a painter AND run a painting contracting company....I found time to read it. In fact the only reason I havent posted the info is IHAVNT HAD TIME to get in front of my pc...Ive been posting from my phone. If you really were open minded about the topic a google search will supply your info. Try typing all this with your thumb....

Ok, can you at least point me to the relevant pages so I don't have to sift through the 90% that is mostly irrelevant?
Reply
(11-28-2012, 10:04 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 09:29 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: Excuse me but I work full time as a painter AND run a painting contracting company....I found time to read it. In fact the only reason I havent posted the info is IHAVNT HAD TIME to get in front of my pc...Ive been posting from my phone. If you really were open minded about the topic a google search will supply your info. Try typing all this with your thumb....

Ok, can you at least point me to the relevant pages so I don't have to sift through the 90% that is mostly irrelevant?

I honestly think we should make a new thread. Once it gets past five or ten pages, the discussion is everywhere.
Reply
(11-28-2012, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 03:28 PM)Hanno Wrote: I don't know where you stand on the evolution question, FaithByProxy, but for Melkite, a special permission after the flood would entirely contradict the evolutionary scheme, which claims that the earliest humans were omnivorous hunter-gatherers, and therefore would've been eating meat long before the biblical flood!  The passage also seems to refer to Genesis 1:29, which says even all the animals were herbivores, which I'm sure Melkite doesn't take literally if he believes that saber-toothed tigers and Tyrannosauri preceded humans.  So why does he insist on the later passage?

Melkite?

The original point, though, was that animals were still subservient to humans: "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  Which is why it was no problem for Abel to be a shepherd or to sacrifice a lamb to God.  So I don't see why it would be any different for the post-lapsarian humans to enslave or ritually sacrifice (if not eat) the "unensouled humanoid creatures" that Axona and Melkite surmise lived among them.

No, I don't take it literally.

If you don't take it literally, then how do you take it?  Allegorically?  Anagogically?  Tropologically?  What would it be an allegory for?  Does the vegetarianism of antediluvian humans and animals hint at the time of the Law, before the coming of Christ, when mankind could not eat His flesh and drink His blood?

(11-28-2012, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote: So, are you saying you believe that saber-toothed tigers and the various dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the first generations of mankind?  Do you believe they started off herbivorous?  I haven't looked much into it, are there fossils of carnivorous animal species that have been found with herbivorous sets of teeth?

I haven't looked into it much either myself.  I am fairly agnostic as to saber-toothed tigers and dinosaurs, but if ancient monsters did exist, they are probably the Leviathans and Behemoths mentioned in the Old Testament.  Obviously all creatures were herbivorous before the flood.  If there was some non-literal point that the inspired author of Genesis was trying to make in those passages, then what was it? Why did it stay hidden for so long?  What was to be gained by having three or four millennia worth of creationism obscuring the alleged "true story" of evolution?  Wouldn't it have been more impressive if science had uncovered fossils of herbivorous tigers?  You don't think it's even slightly suspect that the fossil record keeps contradicting Genesis?  It doesn't seem remotely plausible to you that it's the work of an artificer?

(11-28-2012, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote: If you have the time, would you mind writing a narrative of how you believe creation happened and how you would respond to the various things from modern scientific thought that seems to contradict the Bible?

I have given you my answer to that already.  But instead of going off into all kinds of "various things from modern scientific thought that seem to contradict the Bible," I think we should stick to the most important one: the theory of evolution and how it contradicts Original Sin.  I respond by withholding my assent to the theory.  The Catholic faith is truth.  Anything that contradicts it is necessarily a deception.  We know who the prince of this world is.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 12:58 AM)Hanno Wrote: If you don't take it literally, then how do you take it?  Allegorically?  Anagogically?  Tropologically?  What would it be an allegory for?  Does the vegetarianism of antediluvian humans and animals hint at the time of the Law, before the coming of Christ, when mankind could not eat His flesh and drink His blood?

I haven't really thought about it that much, but I don't see a need for it to be any of the above.  It's our primal religion.  It was admittedly written down thousands of years actual the actual events were supposed to have taken place.  Is there a divine guarantee that during that period, pre-Judaism humanity had infallible oral history keeping?  While there is definitely allegory in it, I don't see every last jot and tittle having to be something that points to the future.  So, to take your example of antediluvian vegetarianism and it's prospective problem with eating the flesh and blood of Christ, if eating it in bread and wine form doesn't make us cannibals, why would it any more make us carnivores?  Your act of looking for allegory makes it look like you can't be satisfied with a given story meaning nothing other than a story passed down.  If you need to find an allegory in something where it isn't otherwise already apparent, I can see that very easily predisposing you to reading onto the text something that isn't inherently there, which is exactly what the Church does with Original Sin and papal infallibility.  Again, not that they aren't true, but if you have to find proofs for something in the Bible when no such proof is inherently there, it makes the doctrine look suspect.

Quote:I haven't looked into it much either myself.  I am fairly agnostic as to saber-toothed tigers and dinosaurs, but if ancient monsters did exist, they are probably the Leviathans and Behemoths mentioned in the Old Testament.  Obviously all creatures were herbivorous before the flood.  If there was some non-literal point that the inspired author of Genesis was trying to make in those passages, then what was it? Why did it stay hidden for so long?  What was to be gained by having three or four millennia worth of creationism obscuring the alleged "true story" of evolution?  Wouldn't it have been more impressive if science had uncovered fossils of herbivorous tigers?  You don't think it's even slightly suspect that the fossil record keeps contradicting Genesis?  It doesn't seem remotely plausible to you that it's the work of an artificer?

Well, nobody back then was digging up fossils out of the ground, so there wouldn't have been a need to construct a timeframe of things to explain to oneself how the world came about, beyond what they had grown up being told.  I do think it's suspect that the fossil record keeps contradicting Genesis, but what I don't understand is why, if the fossil record is contradicting Genesis, why anyone would automatically assume it was the fossil record and not Genesis that was the work of an artificer.  I mean, I understand, but you're taking a whole lot on faith.  You have, on the one had, someone presenting you with concrete evidence of something and can verify and demonstrate that what they are saying is true, at least from a scientific perspective.  You then have someone else telling you, "here's what the Bible says, and I have nothing outside of it to back up that what I'm saying is true, but you just HAVE to believe me that it is."  Can you think of any other example from life where we would take the word of someone who has no tangible evidence to support what they're saying over someone who can produce a plethora of tangible evidence to the contrary?  What you are suggesting is kind of like taking your son's word that he wasn't out playing in the mud, even though your daughter says he was, and his hands and clothes are covered in mud, with his footprints tracking right down to the big mud puddle at the end of the driveway.

Reply
I don't think the fossil record contradicts genesis.  I just think scientists are interpreting strata incorrectly.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 09:30 AM)Melkite Wrote: I haven't really thought about it that much, but I don't see a need for it to be any of the above.  It's our primal religion.  It was admittedly written down thousands of years actual the actual events were supposed to have taken place.  Is there a divine guarantee that during that period, pre-Judaism humanity had infallible oral history keeping?  While there is definitely allegory in it, I don't see every last jot and tittle having to be something that points to the future.  So, to take your example of antediluvian vegetarianism and it's prospective problem with eating the flesh and blood of Christ, if eating it in bread and wine form doesn't make us cannibals, why would it any more make us carnivores?  Your act of looking for allegory makes it look like you can't be satisfied with a given story meaning nothing other than a story passed down.  If you need to find an allegory in something where it isn't otherwise already apparent, I can see that very easily predisposing you to reading onto the text something that isn't inherently there, which is exactly what the Church does with Original Sin and papal infallibility.  Again, not that they aren't true, but if you have to find proofs for something in the Bible when no such proof is inherently there, it makes the doctrine look suspect.

Actually, I don't need an allegory for that passage, because I take it literally.  I was just wondering aloud what sense you might give it, but I guess you take it as an extraneous bit of primal religious fluffle with no substantial meaning now that evolution has rendered it ahistorical.   It seems to me that you are overemphasizing the view of modern biblical scholarship at the expense of the view of the bible with God as its author.  And that is a total novelty.

If you think the doctrine of original is suspect, Melkite, then that's your business, but I think you should be peddling that stuff somewhere other than on a traditional Catholic forum.  You have already said on this thread that you would re-imagine a de fide doctrine if science could show the biblical basis for it to be flawed.  And I think that is nuts.  You are saying, in effect, that the faith is subservient to science.  No.  Nothing is greater than the faith.  The faith is from heaven, whereas science is just an observation of this fallen world: this material earth which is the only realm where Satan is allowed any power.  We must not be fooled.

(11-29-2012, 09:30 AM)Melkite Wrote:
Quote:I haven't looked into it much either myself.  I am fairly agnostic as to saber-toothed tigers and dinosaurs, but if ancient monsters did exist, they are probably the Leviathans and Behemoths mentioned in the Old Testament.  Obviously all creatures were herbivorous before the flood.  If there was some non-literal point that the inspired author of Genesis was trying to make in those passages, then what was it? Why did it stay hidden for so long?  What was to be gained by having three or four millennia worth of creationism obscuring the alleged "true story" of evolution?  Wouldn't it have been more impressive if science had uncovered fossils of herbivorous tigers?  You don't think it's even slightly suspect that the fossil record keeps contradicting Genesis?  It doesn't seem remotely plausible to you that it's the work of an artificer?

Well, nobody back then was digging up fossils out of the ground, so there wouldn't have been a need to construct a timeframe of things to explain to oneself how the world came about, beyond what they had grown up being told. 


That's because what they had grown up being told was the literal history as contained in Genesis, which coincided perfectly with their religious appreciation of Christ as their Savior and Redeemer.  Everything fit together nicely, and things hummed along this way in a more or less pleasant arrangement for centuries and centuries and centuries until Darwin.

What I to know from you is, since God is omniscient, why wouldn't he inspire the author of Genesis to compose the history in a way that would eventually coincide with evolution when that discovery would be made?  Why would God inspire a biblical account of history that reads a certain way, knowing full well that when the time came to get a scientific view of history, it would contradict the earlier account?  I mean, you and I could sit down and write a creation story in less than an hour that dovetails perfectly with evolution and yet still would be something that could reasonably have been sung by the primitive Semites while they danced around their desert campfires with their timbrels and harps.  Therefore we can easily conclude that God himself would've done that if evolution was true.  And since he didn't, we can conclude that evolution is a false deception.

(11-29-2012, 09:30 AM)Melkite Wrote: I do think it's suspect that the fossil record keeps contradicting Genesis, but what I don't understand is why, if the fossil record is contradicting Genesis, why anyone would automatically assume it was the fossil record and not Genesis that was the work of an artificer.  I mean, I understand, but you're taking a whole lot on faith.  You have, on the one had, someone presenting you with concrete evidence of something and can verify and demonstrate that what they are saying is true, at least from a scientific perspective.  You then have someone else telling you, "here's what the Bible says, and I have nothing outside of it to back up that what I'm saying is true, but you just HAVE to believe me that it is."  Can you think of any other example from life where we would take the word of someone who has no tangible evidence to support what they're saying over someone who can produce a plethora of tangible evidence to the contrary?  What you are suggesting is kind of like taking your son's word that he wasn't out playing in the mud, even though your daughter says he was, and his hands and clothes are covered in mud, with his footprints tracking right down to the big mud puddle at the end of the driveway.

Bad analogy.  But it works if you infuse it with the right qualifications.  If I know my son is inspired by God, and if I know my daughter is a born skeptic and incorrigible miscreant who sometimes likes drawing pentagrams in finger paint, then it would be more reasonable for me to believe that my daughter had muddied up my son in an attempt to get me to doubt him.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 12:00 PM)Hanno Wrote: If you think the doctrine of original is suspect, Melkite, then that's your business, but I think you should be peddling that stuff somewhere other than on a traditional Catholic forum.  You have already said on this thread that you would re-imagine a de fide doctrine if science could show the biblical basis for it to be flawed.  And I think that is nuts.  You are saying, in effect, that the faith is subservient to science.  No.  Nothing is greater than the faith.  The faith is from heaven, whereas science is just an observation of this fallen world: this material earth which is the only realm where Satan is allowed any power.  We must not be fooled.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, sort of.  I don't mean that I would modify my faith merely if science says one thing and the faith says another.  I'm not going to modify it if science leaves reasonable doubt or if the evidence is not enough to conclusively say the faith is wrong on a given issue.  If it were possible for me to look outside of the issue with some sort of omniscience, and I could see the science was right and the faith was wrong on the issue, of course I would modify it, wouldn't you?  Yes, science is merely an observation of this fallen world.  But because it is just an observation doesn't inherently negate what it actually observes.  What you're doing is saying "Screw science, I don't care what it tells me, no matter how rational it may be and how irrational my faith is on this point, the faith must be right, therefore I have nothing further to consider.  I guess my hold up with it is, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all believe with equal fervor that their faith is correct.  And yet we believe they are wrong.  So, when our faith makes the same claims as people we know are wrong, and we offer nothing in addition to give any reason why we should be trusted over them, how can we be so sure we're the right ones?

Quote:Bad analogy.  But it works if you infuse it with the right qualifications.  If I know my son is inspired by God, and if I know my daughter is a born skeptic and incorrigible miscreant who sometimes likes drawing pentagrams in finger paint, then it would be more reasonable for me to believe that my daughter had muddied up my son in an attempt to get me to doubt him.

Ok.  But you don't know your son is inspired by God.  You just believe he is.  To take the analogy further, you have other sons who also claim to be inspired by God, yet you don't believe for a second that they actually are.  You believe they are lying, or misguided.  So merely claiming divine inspiration does not guarantee it.  And, God hasn't come down and notified you which of your sons he actually has inspired, if any of them.  What do you do when your daughter, who acknowledges she is not perfect and doesn't know everything, gives your son two apples, then gives him another two to bring both to you, and your daughter tells you she gave him 4 apples for you, but you son presents 4 apples to you and tells you it is actually 5?
Reply
Forgive me, Melkite, but you appear to be getting seriously far out with this, and I'm becoming wary of indulging you.  I can only guess that you're having a crisis of faith perhaps, or else you have embraced some sort of relativism or subjectivism because you seem to be genuinely unsure of whether we can know Catholicism is true and you're talking like a modernist.  If I'm reading you wrong, correct me. 

Anyway, we do not know that Catholicism is true in the same way we discern what is true in our observations of the material world.  Our gnosis is spiritual, not intellectual.  It is perceived by the soul, not the senses.  As an Eastern Catholic, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of metanoia, which in part suggests a radical changing of one's mind: to repent and be open to perceiving things anew; spiritually, not just intellectually.  We come to the Catholic faith by cooperation with the pure grace of God, not through any proofs we figure out with our mind.  Personally, I think it's dangerous for you to place the same demands on spiritual truth as you do on observable phenomena.  The faith, which is of God, necessarily transcends the scientific method.  I am not your spiritual advisor, but please consider this passage of scripture:
Quote:Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe.  For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

If you don't mind, I think you should focus on answering the OP instead of bringing in your own questions which imply that you wonder whether we can even know if Catholicism is true in the first place.  Because if that's your quandary, then we need a whole different kind of thread!

(11-29-2012, 02:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: Ok.  But you don't know your son is inspired by God.  You just believe he is.  To take the analogy further, you have other sons who also claim to be inspired by God, yet you don't believe for a second that they actually are.  You believe they are lying, or misguided.  So merely claiming divine inspiration does not guarantee it.  And, God hasn't come down and notified you which of your sons he actually has inspired, if any of them.  What do you do when your daughter, who acknowledges she is not perfect and doesn't know everything, gives your son two apples, then gives him another two to bring both to you, and your daughter tells you she gave him 4 apples for you, but you son presents 4 apples to you and tells you it is actually 5?

But God has come down and notified me which son is inspired!  It's called the Incarnation.  God became incarnate in Jesus Christ and founded the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit, so that by faith we could come to the truth.  If you are even close to questioning any of this, then we have wasted many, many pages of this thread.  I'm interested in knowing how believing practicing traditionalist Catholics reconcile evolution with Humani Generis.  I already know how the modernists do it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)