Looking for an answer from Tony Pagano
C. Thompson
I asked a rhetorical question in
(http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1701a5c0.0306
231750.1cc7db42%40posting.google.com) (or see
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K10122C05).
If it's all the same to you, I think I would like an answer.
I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic religion?
Jesus Christ took the form of a human- why doesn't that qualify as
anthropomorphism?
If you recall, you made that statement in
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7eubfv4r2utag2
2odcss1m1dgucmnndd8d%404ax.com (or see
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L13132C05).
Inquiring minds want to know.
Chris
Aron-Ra
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdc1va$sta$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
> Tony,
>
> I asked a rhetorical question in
>
(http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1701a5c0.0306
> 231750.1cc7db42%40posting.google.com) (or see
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?K10122C05).
>
> If it's all the same to you, I think I would like an answer.
>
> I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic
religion?
>
> Jesus Christ took the form of a human- why doesn't that qualify as
> anthropomorphism?
What about his dad? Yahweh walks, turns his back, holds up his hand, and
even eats. He appeared before Joseph Smith (in the flesh) and even wrestled
Jacob, and lost even though he cheated. That all sounds anthropomorphic to
me, especially when the Bible rather flatly states that God has the look of
a man.
macaddicted
> Tony,
>
> I asked a rhetorical question in
> (http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1701a5c0.0306
> 231750.1cc7db42%40posting.google.com) (or see
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?K10122C05).
>
> If it's all the same to you, I think I would like an answer.
>
> I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic religion?
>
> Jesus Christ took the form of a human- why doesn't that qualify as
> anthropomorphism?
>
>
Since Pagano didn't chime in I will try to take it up.
I copied this from the link you have above:
--begin quote--
Not to beat this too far past the point of calling in the coroner, but
"anthro-" refers to man (or more properly, humans) and "morphic" means
form or shape. You know, shaped like human? Eh?
This just might be one of the silliest things I ever read about
christianity.
--end quote--
Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that Jesus was
merely God in the form of man? If that is what you are saying then I
would respond that the status of the humanity of Jesus racked the early
church for its first four centuries. I could go through the heresies,
the Councils of Niceae and Chalcedon, the role of the Cappadocians,
etc., but I am sure you have seen all that before. The formula, stripped
to its basics, is that Christ was at once man and God, with neither
overriding the other.
I am unsure where your question is coming from, so I am not sure how
best to answer it. Let me know.
--
macaddicted
Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether
impossible.
Stanislaw Lem
C. Thompson
Tony asserted that the question about the rock that God could not lift
presupposed "an anthropomorphic god who lifts", and this did not apply to
the Christian God.
I have very passing knowledge of the actual mechanics the RC Church passed
through, but your basic idea was what I was taught as a child. This is, of
course, a highly anthropomorphic view. Note that I am not saying there is
anything wrong with this- but for Tony Pagano to say the Christian God- in
this case Jesus Christ- is not anthropomorphic, really is quite silly.
On top of this, Aron-Ra points out all the anthropomorphisms assigned to God
the Father. I might also mention that the Holy Spirit was capable of
impregnating Mary- another (although slightly more obscure)
anthropomorphism.
Chris
macaddicted
That is poorly stated by Tony, but not incorrect. The usual response is
that it assumes a physical God. The idea is how do you bound the
supernatural through the natural? My usual response is: if God is
infinite, as we assume, then he would be able to create an infinitely
heavy object. You go find one, and I'll ask God to lift it. (No luck yet
with black holes. I left a message, but 'ya now how it is. Of course I
could try "Define 'lift,'" or "In what time frame." Ain't theology fun?)
For me it sits up there with "Were there rainbows before Noah?"
> I have very passing knowledge of the actual mechanics the RC Church passed
> through, but your basic idea was what I was taught as a child. This is, of
> course, a highly anthropomorphic view.
Yes, it is anthropomorphic. My only objection is comparing Jesus to,
say, Zeus. Jesus did not take on the form of a human but was human (and
God). A seemingly small point, but without it about 1,700 years of
theology comes crashing down.
> Note that I am not saying there is
> anything wrong with this- but for Tony Pagano to say the Christian God- in
> this case Jesus Christ- is not anthropomorphic, really is quite silly.
>
> On top of this, Aron-Ra points out all the anthropomorphisms assigned to God
> the Father.
>
The basis behind the anthropomorphisms of God in the OT is the desire of
man to understand something that cannot be completely comprehended. The
RCC, despite Tony's protestations, does not hold to interpretation based
on the immediate meaning of the verses in the Bible. Saying you can take
the immediate meaning of scripture through the lens of 2,000 years of
tradition seems self-contradictory. (Tony, if you are out there, I'm not
going to start up with you over this again. I'll just let you believe
that the overwhelming majority of theologians and biblical scholars from
Pius XII (_Divino Afflante Spiritu_) to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(_Interpretation of the Bible_) are heretics. So go ahead and say I was
smoked, pounded, cooked, roasted, flambe'd, julienne'd, or even juiced.
I don't care. My apologies to the rest of the listening audience for the
side trip.) So for the RCC, we tend to take a less literal view. From
what I have learned it is better to think of them as representatives or
mediators. If we think of them of incarnations then Christian theology
comes tumbleing down. (Less violent than crashing? See above.)
Look at God's interaction with man up to the fall as an example. The
question as to how "man" should be interpreted leads down completely
different paths. If you interpret it as an individual, Adam, then you
get what many Christians understand as the basis for original sin. But
what happens if, as it sometimes is, you interpret "man" as a corporate
being? Then there is not an individual but a group. Just who was God
walking with? It leads to a fundamental question: How, then, do we
understand God walking with "man" in the Garden of Eden? The RCC has
chosen to interpret this not as a literal history but as an effort by
the Israelites to understand and express the relationship between man
and God, not write a history or science text. (note to Tony: don't
bother with the PBC writing, I'll just quote Suhard, Divino, and Humani.
See my note on heretics above.) You can also see how this would affect
the debate on monogenism versus polygenism.
> I might also mention that the Holy Spirit was capable of
> impregnating Mary- another (although slightly more obscure)
> anthropomorphism.
Which returns me to my Zeus objection. ;-)
> Chris
--
macaddicted
How many theologians can dance on the head of a pin?
Michael Lloyd
Speaking for Tony (why????!!!! Oh well), it seems the problem is with
the meaning of anthropomorphic. Although Jesus clearly was a flesh and
blood man, there is still a great deal of confusion about God the
Father, or the one who is or is not lifting the rock so to speak.
Although, historically the church has ascribed anthropomorphic
characteristics to the Father, these are usually meant as "icons", or
pointers to personality...a super human personality as it were. It is
fairly obvious that there are huge problems with this point of view
and so the everyday believer is forced into an Is/Is Not situation,
i.e. God is anthropomorphic.......and he isn't.
As to Christianity itself being anthr' well it has to be as per the
above posts.
In most cases, all monotheist religions are...again for obvious
reasons.
For simplicity: worship the gourd??
Chris Thompson
This all gibes perfectly with the explanations I received from my
friends the Jesuits :)
It doesn't let Tony off the hook for his claims, though, as I don't
believe for a minute that he follows the mainstream church in this
regard.
You out there Tony?
Chris
macaddicted
> This all gibes perfectly with the explanations I received from my
> friends the Jesuits :)
An honor. I think.
--
macaddicted
Do the undoable.
Attain the unattainable.
Expect the unexpected.
A Pagano
(Chris Thompson) wrote:
>macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com (macaddicted) wrote in message news:<1fx60x8.1820zm2oilgu8N%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>...
>> C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > macaddicted wrote:
>> > > C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Tony,
>> > >>
>> > >> I asked a rhetorical question in
>> > >>
>> (http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1701a5c0.0306
>> > >> 231750.1cc7db42%40posting.google.com) (or see
>> > >> http://makeashorterlink.com/?K10122C05).
>> > >>
>> > >> If it's all the same to you, I think I would like an answer.
>> > >>
>> > >> I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic
>> > >> religion?
Pagano replies:
Christianity is "God centered" not "human centered." In this sense I
don't know how Thompson could sustain this characterization.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jesus Christ took the form of a human- why doesn't that qualify as
>> > >> anthropomorphism?
Pagano replies:
It doesn't because Jesus IS human (and God). And an
"anthropomorphism" is the attribution of human characteristics to some
entity which is NOT HUMAN. Jesus' human and divine substance are a
unified whole and cannot be separated. And therein lies the problem
for Thompson's criticism of my point (3):
3. The [rock conundrum] question mistakenly presupposes an
anthropomorphic god who "lifts."
The Rock Conundrum presupposes that an omnipotent God is (or could be)
effected by "weight" and "lifts." This is an attempt to
anthropomorphize an omnipotent God. And as such requires one to
presuppose two contradictory assertions: God is omnipotent AND God is
not (or might not be) omnipotent.
>"lifts."
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Since Pagano didn't chime in I will try to take it up.
>> > >
>> > > I copied this from the link you have above:
>> > > --begin quote--
>> > >
>> > > Not to beat this too far past the point of calling in the coroner, but
>> > > "anthro-" refers to man (or more properly, humans) and "morphic" means
>> > > form or shape. You know, shaped like human? Eh?
>> > >
>> > > This just might be one of the silliest things I ever read about
>> > > christianity.
>> > >
>> > > --end quote--
>> > >
>> > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that Jesus was
>> > > merely God in the form of man? If that is what you are saying then I
>> > > would respond that the status of the humanity of Jesus racked the
>> > > early church for its first four centuries. I could go through the
>> > > heresies, the Councils of Niceae and Chalcedon, the role of the
>> > > Cappadocians, etc., but I am sure you have seen all that before. The
>> > > formula, stripped to its basics, is that Christ was at once man and
>> > > God, with neither overriding the other.
Pagano replies:
The "Rock" conundrum presupposes two contradictory statements: God is
omnipotent AND God is not (or possibly not) omnipotent. This is
apparent because it suggests that an omnipotent God is at the same
time some anthropomorphous being who might be effected by weight,
limited in what he might lift as a man might be limited, and limited
in the size of rock creation because of way "weight" is defined and
measured.
Thompson attempted to overcome this objection by mistakenly describing
Jesus as anthropomorphic when He is in fact human (and God). If one
is HUMAN, one canNOT at the same time be anthropomorphic. Furthermore
Jesus is BOTH human and omnipotent God and His human substance and
divine substance are one, inseparable unity. This effectively turns
back Thompson's criticism of my attack on the silly conundrum.
>> > >
>> > > I am unsure where your question is coming from, so I am not sure how
>> > > best to answer it. Let me know.
>> >
>> > Tony asserted that the question about the rock that God could not lift
>> > presupposed "an anthropomorphic god who lifts", and this did not apply to
>> > the Christian God.
>> >
>>
>> That is poorly stated by Tony, but not incorrect. The usual response is
>> that it assumes a physical God. The idea is how do you bound the
>> supernatural through the natural? My usual response is: if God is
>> infinite, as we assume, then he would be able to create an infinitely
>> heavy object.
Pagano replies:
Macaddicted is mistaken and he highlights another problem with the
rock conundrum. "Heavy" is measure of weight (not mass) and can ONLY
be applied to a significantly smaller body on or near the surface of a
much larger body. As a result there could NOT be an infinitely
"heavy" rock. "Heavy" is the characteristic of a smaller body within
the gravitational field of a much larger one.
This has the effect of dramatically limiting the rock that can be
created.
>> You go find one, and I'll ask God to lift it. (No luck yet
>> with black holes. I left a message, but 'ya now how it is. Of course I
>> could try "Define 'lift,'" or "In what time frame." Ain't theology fun?)
>> For me it sits up there with "Were there rainbows before Noah?"
Pagano replies:
Again the misunderstanding between mass and weight. Characterizing a
black hole as "heavy" makes no sense. The Rock conundrum is in all
honesty silly at best.
>>
>> > I have very passing knowledge of the actual mechanics the RC Church passed
>> > through, but your basic idea was what I was taught as a child. This is, of
>> > course, a highly anthropomorphic view.
>>
>> Yes, it is anthropomorphic. My only objection is comparing Jesus to,
>> say, Zeus. Jesus did not take on the form of a human but was human (and
>> God). A seemingly small point, but without it about 1,700 years of
>> theology comes crashing down.
Pagano replies:
This demonstrates why no one should come to macaddicted for an
informed opinion on Catholic Church doctrine. Here he agrees with
Thompson who characterizes Catholic Christology as "anthropomorphic."
Christianity is "Christ centered" not "human centered." Catholic
dogmas were not human innovations, but Revealed truths. Nor were they
"developed" as a result of the heresies (Docetism, Arianism,
Nestorianism, Monophysitism) but simply formalized after heretics
attacked what had been accepted for centuries.
>>
>> > Note that I am not saying there is
>> > anything wrong with this- but for Tony Pagano to say the Christian God- in
>> > this case Jesus Christ- is not anthropomorphic, really is quite silly.
Pagano replies:
Please get a dictionary. "Anthropomorphic" is an adjective
attributing human characteristics to things and entities which are NOT
HUMAN. But Jesus is HUMAN (and God).
>> >
>> > On top of this, Aron-Ra points out all the anthropomorphisms assigned to God
>> > the Father.
>> The basis behind the anthropomorphisms of God in the OT is the desire of
>> man to understand something that cannot be completely comprehended.
Pagano replies:
This is ass backwards. It isn't man trying to understand God but God
teaching man with his limited language and understanding. Scripture
is the work of the Holy Spirit through (and with) the human authors to
teach man. The anthropomorphisms were a common literary method to
depict or dramatize God's dealings with humanity. In other words the
anthropomorphisms were metaphorical. In the case of the "Rock
Conundrum" the anthropomorphism is NOT metaphorical.
This is apparent because the "Rock Conundrum" implies that an
omnipotent God is at the same time some anthropomorphous being who
might be effected by weight, limited in what he might lift as a man
might be limited, and limited in the size of rock creation because of
way "weight" is defined and measured.
>> >
>>
>> The
>> RCC, despite Tony's protestations, does not hold to interpretation based
>> on the immediate meaning of the verses in the Bible.
Pagano replies:
Again I will publish paragraph 115 from the second edition of the
Catechisim of the Catholic Church:
"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture
and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound
interpretation: ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE
LITERAL."
macaddicted cannot wish away this position which the Catholic Church
has held continuously for 2000 years. Even the liberal position
taken by a recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical
Commission (PBC), which macaddicted has used as his principle source,
doesn't dispense with with literal sense of Scripture. Macaddicted
has repeatedly misrepresented the PBC document and the PBC hasn't been
an arm of the Magisterium for several decades.
>> Saying you can take
>> the immediate meaning of scripture through the lens of 2,000 years of
>> tradition seems self-contradictory.
Pagano replies:
Unfortunately for macaddicted I never said anything like this. The
literal sense is the immediate meaning of the words as intended by the
author. This doesn't mean the literal sense is the only sense or the
most important sense for every verse.
>> (Tony, if you are out there, I'm not
>> going to start up with you over this again. I'll just let you believe
>> that the overwhelming majority of theologians and biblical scholars from
>> Pius XII (_Divino Afflante Spiritu_) to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
>> (_Interpretation of the Bible_) are heretics.
Pagano replies:
It is hard to take this seriously since most (if not all) of the
quotes macaddicted used from any of these sources in the past were
shown to have been taken out-of-context, misunderstood, misused, or a
combination of all three. In one instance macaddicted quoted from the
Catholic Catechism arguing the exact opposite of its intended meaning.
>> So go ahead and say I was
>> smoked, pounded, cooked, roasted, flambe'd, julienne'd, or even juiced.
>> I don't care. My apologies to the rest of the listening audience for the
>> side trip.) So for the RCC, we tend to take a less literal view.
Pagano replies:
Paragraph 115 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church----written for
all the faithful----directly and explicitly contradicts this. The
Church views the literal sense as the BASIS for all the other senses.
>> From
>> what I have learned it is better to think of them as representatives or
>> mediators. If we think of them of incarnations then Christian theology
>> comes tumbleing down. (Less violent than crashing? See above.)
>>
>>
>> Look at God's interaction with man up to the fall as an example. The
>> question as to how "man" should be interpreted leads down completely
>> different paths. If you interpret it as an individual, Adam, then you
>> get what many Christians understand as the basis for original sin. But
>> what happens if, as it sometimes is, you interpret "man" as a corporate
>> being? Then there is not an individual but a group. Just who was God
>> walking with? It leads to a fundamental question: How, then, do we
>> understand God walking with "man" in the Garden of Eden? The RCC has
>> chosen to interpret this not as a literal history but as an effort by
>> the Israelites to understand and express the relationship between man
>> and God, not write a history or science text. (note to Tony: don't
>> bother with the PBC writing, I'll just quote Suhard, Divino, and Humani.
>> See my note on heretics above.) You can also see how this would affect
>> the debate on monogenism versus polygenism.
Pagano replies:
macaddicted can indulge himself in these theological meanderings.
Unfortunately they bear little resemblence to what the Magisterium of
the Catholic Church has offered for the last 2000 years.
>>
>> > I might also mention that the Holy Spirit was capable of
>> > impregnating Mary- another (although slightly more obscure)
>> > anthropomorphism.
Pagano replies:
This is an argument from ignorance. Nowhere in Scripture do the
authors anthropomorphize the Holy Spirit's action during the
conception of Jesus within Mary's womb.
>>
>> Which returns me to my Zeus objection. ;-)
>>
>> > Chris
>
>This all gibes perfectly with the explanations I received from my
>friends the Jesuits :)
Pagano replies:
I suspect that as liberal as the Jesuits have become they still have a
tremendous reverence for both the Holy Spirit and the Queen of Heaven
and Earth to have dared to teach you any such thing concerning the
Holy Spirit's action during the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.
>
>It doesn't let Tony off the hook for his claims, though, as I don't
>believe for a minute that he follows the mainstream church in this
>regard.
Pagano replies:
THE SHORT VERSION:
Thompson improperly used "anthropomorphic" when referring to Jesus who
was Human. "Anthropomorphisms" are used when referring to NONhuman
objects and entities. And he falsely considered Christianity as
"anthropomorphic" rather than what it is: "Christ centered." These
false premises formed the basis of his criticism and as such his
criticism collapses.
macaddicted misused the term "weight," and agreed with Thompson's
improper characterization of Christianity as "anthropomorphic.
macaddicted misunderstands the anthropomorphisms in Scripture as man's
attempt to understand God rather than what they are: the Holy Spirit
teaching man with his limited understanding. The anthropomorphisms
in Scripture are a literary method which were metaphorical. The
implied anthropomorphism in the Rock Conundrum is not metaphorical.
maccadicted hurt Thompson more than he helped.
And finally it is obvious that macaddicted is still smarting from our
previous confrontations where I demonstrated line-by-line that he
misuses, misrepresents, and misunderstands virtually every Catholic
document he has offered to support his mistaken positions.
I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptnosm.com
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:57:33 +0000 (UTC), rockw...@hotmail.com
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic
>>> > >> religion?
>
> Pagano replies:
>Christianity is "God centered" not "human centered." In this sense I
>don't know how Thompson could sustain this characterization.
really? ever read john 3:16?
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is ass backwards. It isn't man trying to understand God but God
>teaching man with his limited language and understanding. Scripture
>is the work of the Holy Spirit through (and with) the human authors to
>teach man. The anthropomorphisms were a common literary method to
>depict or dramatize God's dealings with humanity. In other words the
>anthropomorphisms were metaphorical. In the case of the "Rock
>Conundrum" the anthropomorphism is NOT metaphorical.
so pagano admits there are non-literal meanings to scripture.
too bad he doesnt know which ones are non-literal.
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again I will publish paragraph 115 from the second edition of the
>Catechisim of the Catholic Church:
>
>"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture
>and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound
>interpretation: ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE
>LITERAL."
ironic in that i, personally, pointed this paragraph out to pagano,
and the catechism goes on to explain that since there are several
senses in which scripture can be understood, interpretation of
scripture is a complex process...the literal meaning is seldom the
right one. so pagano's got it all wrong.
>
>macaddicted cannot wish away this position which the Catholic Church
>has held continuously for 2000 years. Even the liberal position
>taken by a recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical
>Commission (PBC), which macaddicted has used as his principle source,
>doesn't dispense with with literal sense of Scripture. Macaddicted
>has repeatedly misrepresented the PBC document and the PBC hasn't been
>an arm of the Magisterium for several decades.
here pagano tells us why he's better than the pope's biblical
commission at interpreting scripture. here pagano tells us why he,
rather than the pope, is right on evolution. the pope accepts
evolution. pagano does not.
pagano doesnt know what the 'magisterium' is. the PBC has NEVER been
part of it. the magisterium is the bishops and the pope exercising
their teaching authority. various agencies, such as the PBC can
assist, but they do not constitute the magisterium
if the pope believed catholic priests violated this authority, he
could suspend them. a few years ago, the pope stepped in and named the
father general of the jesuits because he thought the order was
deviating from church doctrine. given that the jesuits at the vatican
observatory, and at the weston school of theology have written
articles on the natural formation of the universe, rather than its
creation by divine fiat, evidently the pope sees no problem with
evolution.
pagano, of course, believes the pope is an idiot.
>
>>> Saying you can take
>>> the immediate meaning of scripture through the lens of 2,000 years of
>>> tradition seems self-contradictory.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately for macaddicted I never said anything like this. The
>literal sense is the immediate meaning of the words as intended by the
>author. This doesn't mean the literal sense is the only sense or the
>most important sense for every verse.
yet pagano argues that, where it is obviously wrong to do so, it is
right to use the literal sense...genesis for example. this is an idea
abjured by the pope himself, but that does not stop pagano.
>
>
>>> So go ahead and say I was
>>> smoked, pounded, cooked, roasted, flambe'd, julienne'd, or even juiced.
>>> I don't care. My apologies to the rest of the listening audience for the
>>> side trip.) So for the RCC, we tend to take a less literal view.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Paragraph 115 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church----written for
>all the faithful----directly and explicitly contradicts this. The
>Church views the literal sense as the BASIS for all the other senses.
which, again, does not mean it's the ONLY one, or ONLY the correct
one. again, all teachers of catholic doctrine are required, by the
papal encyclical 'ex corde ecclesia' to take an oath swearing fidelity
to catholic teachings. since no catholic priest or teacher has EVER
been suspended for teaching evolution (including the jesuits, like fr.
richard clifford at the weston school), we can safely conclude
evolution is fine with the pope
pagano knows neither catholic doctrine, practice, or teachings.
>
> Pagano replies:
>macaddicted can indulge himself in these theological meanderings.
>Unfortunately they bear little resemblence to what the Magisterium of
>the Catholic Church has offered for the last 2000 years.
the same can be said of pagano's musings
>
>>>
>>
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Steven J.
>
> >> > >> I asked you, in effect, Why isn't Christianity an anthropomorphic
> >> > >> religion?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Christianity is "God centered" not "human centered." In this sense I
> don't know how Thompson could sustain this characterization.
>
Christianity isn't considered an "anthropoCENTRIC" religion. There
is, surely, a difference between a religion centered on humanity, and
a religion which discusses the attributes of God as though they were
human attributes. Thompson is implying that Christianity is the
latter, not the former.
>
> >> > >> Jesus Christ took the form of a human- why doesn't that qualify as
> >> > >> anthropomorphism?
>
> Pagano replies:
> It doesn't because Jesus IS human (and God). And an
> "anthropomorphism" is the attribution of human characteristics to some
> entity which is NOT HUMAN. Jesus' human and divine substance are a
> unified whole and cannot be separated. And therein lies the problem
> for Thompson's criticism of my point (3):
>
anthropomorphic on precisely these grounds. He seems to concede that
Christianity itself is anthropomorphic. It seems to me that this
could be argued as follows. Jesus states in the Gospel of John that
"he who has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus is God's self-
revelation to humans, which implies that the traits of God can be
known to some extent by examining the traits of Jesus, which implies
that God's attributes can usefully be considered in terms of human
attributes, which is anthropomorphism.
>
-- [snip]
>
> macaddicted misused the term "weight," and agreed with Thompson's
> improper characterization of Christianity as "anthropomorphic.
> macaddicted misunderstands the anthropomorphisms in Scripture as man's
> attempt to understand God rather than what they are: the Holy Spirit
> teaching man with his limited understanding. The anthropomorphisms
> in Scripture are a literary method which were metaphorical. The
> implied anthropomorphism in the Rock Conundrum is not metaphorical.
> maccadicted hurt Thompson more than he helped.
>
divinely inspired, and metaphorical, does not contradict the statement
that scripture speaks of God in anthropomorphic terms. You seem to be
spending a lot of time arguing against points no one is trying to
make.
>
> And finally it is obvious that macaddicted is still smarting from our
> previous confrontations where I demonstrated line-by-line that he
> misuses, misrepresents, and misunderstands virtually every Catholic
> document he has offered to support his mistaken positions.
>
truth of your claims. You seem to be using the word in some
nonstandard sense here.
>
> I'm done.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
Anastasia
news:127ccf2e.03062...@posting.google.com...
If Mr Pagano 'demonstrated' such a thing, I did not see it. That is
not to say that I did not see the debate, only that I did not see it the way
Mr Pagano represents.
Anastasia
macaddicted
[snip all]
To anyone who cares about our debate on Catholic doctrine, do a Google
group search on my sig and Pagano. Decide for yourself.
Tony, move on to paragraph 116.
> I'm done.
One can always hope.
macaddicted
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:39:34 +0000 (UTC), A Pagano
> <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:57:33 +0000 (UTC), rockw...@hotmail.com
>
[snip]
>
> >
> >macaddicted cannot wish away this position which the Catholic Church
> >has held continuously for 2000 years. Even the liberal position
> >taken by a recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical
> >Commission (PBC), which macaddicted has used as his principle source,
> >doesn't dispense with with literal sense of Scripture. Macaddicted
> >has repeatedly misrepresented the PBC document and the PBC hasn't been
> >an arm of the Magisterium for several decades.
>
It is, however, listed under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (headed by Ratzinger) on the Vatican web site:
< http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/index.htm>
And my principal source, as it is for Ratzinger and John Paul II, is not
_Interpreting the Bible_ but _Divino Afflante Spiritu_. _Interpreting_
flows from Divino and expands on current Catholic methodology. You
should also note that Ratzinger is head of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, a part of the Magisterium, and a conservative
(See _Dominus Iesus_. Very Catholic, but not exactly eccumenical.)
> here pagano tells us why he's better than the pope's biblical
> commission at interpreting scripture. here pagano tells us why he,
> rather than the pope, is right on evolution. the pope accepts
> evolution. pagano does not.
>
Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
statement needs to be qualified. The genesis of the human body by
evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
man is a gift from God.
--quote--
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
philosophies inspiring them, consider the minds as emerging form the
forces of living matter, or as mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are
incompatible with the truth about man.
Pope John Paul II
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
22 October, 1996
--end quote--
This, BTW, is the underlying topic of my Master's thesis.
> pagano doesnt know what the 'magisterium' is. the PBC has NEVER been
> part of it. the magisterium is the bishops and the pope exercising
> their teaching authority. various agencies, such as the PBC can
> assist, but they do not constitute the magisterium
IIRC the PBC was an arm of the Magesterium (they have to give all the
red hats in Rome _something_ to do). Anyway, it was formed as a reaction
to the overuse of Modernism in scriptural interpretation. Thus the 1909
document that Tony loves to quote. That it was formed just over a decade
after _Providentissimus_ had opened the Church to new methods of
interpretation shows just how quickly the problem of exegesis arose. It
is generally acknowledged that the PBC was a necessary step in
correcting what could have been a disasterous shift in biblical
interpretation leading to a fundamental, and improper, displacement of
tradition in Catholic theology. It is also generally accepted that its
pronouncements have been superseeded by following documents from the
Pope (notably Pius XII) and the pre-Vatican II PBC itself.
Biblical scholars did not step away from the statements put forth by the
PBC lightly or easily, especially when they are backed by the Pope
(Benedict XV in 1920 IIRC). That was pretty much the high water mark of
the PBC's reactions to the more liberal ideas coming into the Church.
But the strictures imposed by the PBC made exegesis difficult for
Catholic scholars, It was clear in some instances that Catholic
interpretation no longer matched what was known from sources outside the
Church. This lead to _Divino_, which had to walk a very fine line. (And
has become known as the "Magna Carta" of biblical interpretation)
Opening up interpretative methods had nearly caused a disaster, as I
mentioned above. But the methods allowed the scholars was clearly
becoming inadequate in serving the needs of the other theological
branches of catholicism. A reformation of the ideas behind the PBC was
needed, without rebuking the PBC. What came about, more slowly than
before, was an integration of biblical interpretive methods that had
shown value, but remained close to the Catholic tradition.
There are some who say that some of the methods brought into the Church
after _Divino_ are not entirely proper for use in catholicism. Most of
them came from various branches of protestantism, and, as such, the
belief persists that the underlying ideas of the source have been
brought into Catholic methodology. Still, methods of interpretation,
such as historical-critical, form, literary, textual and more, have
proven their value to the Church. Note that both commentaries I own, as
well as my _Personal Study Edition/Catholic Bible_ (NAB), refer the
J/E/P/D sources for the Pentatuech (e.g. the creation stories being P
and J respectively), something that came about only after _Divino_. Form
criticism has led to finding things like the wonderful weaving together
of the J and P stories of Noah's Flood.
>
> if the pope believed catholic priests violated this authority, he
> could suspend them. a few years ago, the pope stepped in and named the
> father general of the jesuits because he thought the order was
> deviating from church doctrine. given that the jesuits at the vatican
> observatory, and at the weston school of theology have written
> articles on the natural formation of the universe, rather than its
> creation by divine fiat, evidently the pope sees no problem with
> evolution.
>
> pagano, of course, believes the pope is an idiot.
>
> >
> >>> Saying you can take
> >>> the immediate meaning of scripture through the lens of 2,000 years of
> >>> tradition seems self-contradictory.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >Unfortunately for macaddicted I never said anything like this. The
> >literal sense is the immediate meaning of the words as intended by the
> >author. This doesn't mean the literal sense is the only sense or the
> >most important sense for every verse.
My apologies then. I had apparently misunderstood your position.
But you might want to go back and look at your comment on my statement
about anthropomorphism. You state that I agree with Thompson and
criticize me for it, yet seem to miss the sentence that follows, where
we agree. As I said, if Jesus is not human than "about 1,700 years of
theology comes crashing down." (Depends on if you start counting with
Arius or Nestorius) If dear Fr. Brennan only saw the first sentence he
would be the first to grab a torch (figuratively of course).
>
> yet pagano argues that, where it is obviously wrong to do so, it is
> right to use the literal sense...genesis for example. this is an idea
> abjured by the pope himself, but that does not stop pagano.
>
> >
> >
> >>> So go ahead and say I was
> >>> smoked, pounded, cooked, roasted, flambe'd, julienne'd, or even juiced.
> >>> I don't care. My apologies to the rest of the listening audience for the
> >>> side trip.) So for the RCC, we tend to take a less literal view.
> >
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >Paragraph 115 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church----written for
> >all the faithful----directly and explicitly contradicts this. The
> >Church views the literal sense as the BASIS for all the other senses.
>
> which, again, does not mean it's the ONLY one, or ONLY the correct
> one. again, all teachers of catholic doctrine are required, by the
> papal encyclical 'ex corde ecclesia' to take an oath swearing fidelity
> to catholic teachings. since no catholic priest or teacher has EVER
> been suspended for teaching evolution (including the jesuits, like fr.
> richard clifford at the weston school), we can safely conclude
> evolution is fine with the pope
>
> pagano knows neither catholic doctrine, practice, or teachings.
>
That might be a bit harsh.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >macaddicted can indulge himself in these theological meanderings.
> >Unfortunately they bear little resemblence to what the Magisterium of
> >the Catholic Church has offered for the last 2000 years.
>
All I have to say is this: If I used your methods at school I would be
given a pat on the head and a shove out the door.
> the same can be said of pagano's musings
>
Aron-Ra
But Jesus and God are not inseperable. Jesus rather consistently
states and restates many times that he is not God, and warns that none
of his believers should consider him as such. He further goes on to
say that he and God are "one", but continues saying that any of us may
be one with God just as he is. God knows things that Jesus doesn't
know, and isn't even where Jesus is, but somewhere else, in Heaven.
Look it up, Pagano.
John Wilkins
> <wf...@ptnosm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:39:34 +0000 (UTC), A Pagano
> > <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:57:33 +0000 (UTC), rockw...@hotmail.com
> >
> [snip]
>
> >
> > >
> > >macaddicted cannot wish away this position which the Catholic Church
> > >has held continuously for 2000 years. Even the liberal position
> > >taken by a recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical
> > >Commission (PBC), which macaddicted has used as his principle source,
> > >doesn't dispense with with literal sense of Scripture. Macaddicted
> > >has repeatedly misrepresented the PBC document and the PBC hasn't been
> > >an arm of the Magisterium for several decades.
> >
>
> It is, however, listed under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
> Faith (headed by Ratzinger) on the Vatican web site:
> < http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/index.htm>
>
> And my principal source, as it is for Ratzinger and John Paul II, is not
> _Interpreting the Bible_ but _Divino Afflante Spiritu_. _Interpreting_
> flows from Divino and expands on current Catholic methodology. You
> should also note that Ratzinger is head of the Congregation for the
> Doctrine of the Faith, a part of the Magisterium, and a conservative
> (See _Dominus Iesus_. Very Catholic, but not exactly eccumenical.)
I saw a very intriguing German series on the Inquisition which included
many interviews with Ratzinger. The man is so conservative he makes JPII
look more radical than Marx.
>
> > here pagano tells us why he's better than the pope's biblical
> > commission at interpreting scripture. here pagano tells us why he,
> > rather than the pope, is right on evolution. the pope accepts
> > evolution. pagano does not.
> >
>
> Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
> statement needs to be qualified. The genesis of the human body by
> evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
> man is a gift from God.
>
> --quote--
> Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
> philosophies inspiring them, consider the minds as emerging form the
> forces of living matter, or as mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are
> incompatible with the truth about man.
>
> Pope John Paul II
> Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
> 22 October, 1996
> --end quote--
>
> This, BTW, is the underlying topic of my Master's thesis.
MMhhmm. I love the way that adjective "mere" is slipped in. Why are the
souls of humans any the less wondrous as creations of God if their minds
are epiphenomenal? Catholicism will never overcome its neo-Platonic
roots, I fear.
<snipping refutation - well-informed>
> > > Pagano replies:
> > >macaddicted can indulge himself in these theological meanderings.
> > >Unfortunately they bear little resemblence to what the Magisterium of
> > >the Catholic Church has offered for the last 2000 years.
> >
>
> All I have to say is this: If I used your methods at school I would be
> given a pat on the head and a shove out the door.
Catholic fundamentalism is no more attractive than any other variety, to
be sure.
>
> > the same can be said of pagano's musings
> >
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
TomS
<1fxa7sh.sod9vai14tykN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
[...snip...]
>Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
>statement needs to be qualified. The genesis of the human body by
>evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
>man is a gift from God.
>
>--quote--
>Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
>philosophies inspiring them, consider the minds as emerging form the
>forces of living matter, or as mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are
>incompatible with the truth about man.
>
>Pope John Paul II
>Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
>22 October, 1996
>--end quote--
Perhaps you can explain something which I have never understood
about this kind of language when talking about evolution.
Evolution has never been about the origins of an *individual*,
only about the changes to populations. One of the particular cases
of a change to a population is the origin of a new species.
However, the soul is something belonging uniquely to each
individual. We don't inherit souls, along with out physical bodies.
Therefore, I don't see why there is any reason to mention
individual souls when talking about evolution.
If there were a biological science which would have some
relevance to the soul of an individual, it seems to me that it would
be developmental biology. Or, perhaps, genetics, or biochemistry,
or the cell theory of life, or the atomic theory of matter. In such
fields, the question of the existence or the origins of the soul
might have some relevance.
But the origins of the soul seems to be just irrelevant to
evolutionary biology. If someone believed that souls were inherited
from our parents, rather than created individually, then evolution
might enter the picture.
Despite this, it seems to me that Catholics, particularly, are
concerned about this topic when it comes to human evolution.
Tom S.
macaddicted
The primary objection is in how man comes to react and interact with the
world. If you follow a theology, such as Karl Rahner's, man's response,
whether he knows it or not, is a response to God (obviously it is much
more detailed than that. My thesis director has posted a synopsis of
Rahner's _Foundations of Christian Faith_ at
< http://www.west.net/~fischer/Rahner000.htm> Raner's anthropological
basis for his theology has become a major influence in modern
theological thought). The idea that man's response to each other, and
the world around them, came about through means that exclude a response
to the transcendent, which is ultimately is identified with God, is
anathama (RC for "go to hell" ;-) )
So it is more than just physical evolution that concerns the Church. The
"fact" of physical evolution is generally accepted. But the idea of the
mind coming into being through physical means, not by the grace of God,
is the source of the Pope's discussion of the "ontological leap" between
the ideas of science (e.g. Dennett, Dawkins) and Catholicism. It is not
the ideas you express above that concern the Church, but the
metaphysical extension of those ideas.
--
macaddicted
Finally using some of that stuff he learned.
macaddicted
I would rather not get into a theological debate here-- not because I
don't enjoy it, but because it is not the purpose of this group. I will
continue to answer question as well as I can either here or offline.
Please feel free to continue to post here if you would like, or contact
me by email offline. (Note the REMOVETHIS spam killer.)
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But Jesus and God are not inseperable. Jesus rather consistently
> states and restates many times that he is not God, and warns that none
> of his believers should consider him as such. He further goes on to
> say that he and God are "one", but continues saying that any of us may
> be one with God just as he is. God knows things that Jesus doesn't
> know, and isn't even where Jesus is, but somewhere else, in Heaven.
> Look it up, Pagano.
In response to Aron-ra: Rather than run through a long explanation I
will give you the information from the Catechism:
<http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm>
The numbers are footnotes.
470
Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed," 97 in the mysterious
union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of
centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its
operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel
fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature
belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed
it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one
of the Trinity." The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity
his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his
body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity: 98
The Son of God . . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human
mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born
of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all
things except sin. 99
Christ's soul and his human knowledge
471
Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had
replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed
that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul. 100
472
This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human
knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it
was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and
time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in
wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man," 101 and would
even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition
can learn only from experience. 102 This corresponded to the reality of
his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave." 103
473
But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed
the divine life of his person. 104\ "The human nature of God's Son, not
by itself but by its union with the Word , knew and showed forth in
itself everything that pertains to God." 105 Such is first of all the
case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made
man has of his Father. 106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed
the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
107
474
By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate,
Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of
the eternal plans he had come to reveal. 108 What he admitted to not
knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.
109
Christ's human will
475
Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681,
the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural
operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but
cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in
obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father
and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. 110 Christ's human will "does not
resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."
111
Christ's true body
476
Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body
was finite. 112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at
the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized
its representation in holy images to be legitimate. 113
477
At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of
Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the
God we cannot see." 114 The individual characteristics of Christ's body
express the divine person of God's Son. He has made the features of his
human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when
portrayed in a holy image, for the believer "who venerates the icon is
venerating in it the person of the one depicted." 115
The heart of the Incarnate Word
478
Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony, and his
Passion and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God . . .
loved me and gave himself for me." 116 He has loved us all with a human
heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins
and for our salvation, 117 "is quite rightly considered the chief sign
and symbol of that . . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually
loves the eternal Father and all human beings" without exception. 118
Probably my only post Pagano won't argue about.
--
macaddicted
I can copy and paste religious sites too.
Lenny Flank
<much religious preaching deleted>
Tony, why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious
opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's, my car
mechanic's, my veterinian's, or the counter girl at the local gas
station's?
Please be specific.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
TomS
<1fxb23h.1uv1yrw8980yqN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
Thank you.
But even Fischer's synopsis is long, and a little help would be
appreciated in directing my attention to appropriate parts, at least
as a start.
And I still have this problem with "the idea of the mind coming
into being through physical means", how that applies to *evolution*,
rather than more directly to developmental biology (or biochemistry,
or atomism).
You see, I can understand how someone would have a problem with
"the mind", when it refers to "the mind of any one of us" comes into
being, as created by God; and someone who would insist upon a purely
physical (materialistic, naturalistic) explanation for the appearance
of that individual human.
But I don't see, if a person has a way around that problem, how
there would then be any problem *at all* with the first appearance
of humans with human minds. It seems to me that that is just the
same problem (if it is a problem), but removed to the distant past.
I can understand that there would be difficulties in deciding
whether, say, a Neandertal had a human mind. But, if a N. had a
human mind, why wouldn't that come about in precisely the same
way that a modern human gets one, by an act of Divine creation?
Tom S.
C. Thompson
Actually, Tony, let's check Merriam-Webster for "anthropomorphic". I did
that thing, and found:
BEGIN
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
<anthropomorphic deities>
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things <anthropomorphic
supernaturalism>
END
So our first definition makes no mention of nonhuman entities. The first
definition certainly applies to Jesus Christ, I would think- seeing as how
Jesus was supposed to BE human (and God, as you say) He certainly is
described as having human attributes. I am afraid you are still stuck on
this question, Tony- your attempted rebuttal has fallen apart, seeing as how
it hinged on this very point. Next attempt?
Chris
macaddicted
Your right to say that the mind coming into being is not "physical"
evolution. From what I know, the problem the RCC has is the extension of
the evolutionary ideas into the development of the mind. Evolution is
less and less of a problem, even monogenism is losing some of its weight
as theologians like Karl Rahner have found ways to explain original sin
without a literal Adam and Eve.
>
> You see, I can understand how someone would have a problem with
> "the mind", when it refers to "the mind of any one of us" comes into
> being, as created by God; and someone who would insist upon a purely
> physical (materialistic, naturalistic) explanation for the appearance
> of that individual human.
>
> But I don't see, if a person has a way around that problem, how
> there would then be any problem *at all* with the first appearance
> of humans with human minds. It seems to me that that is just the
> same problem (if it is a problem), but removed to the distant past.
>
> I can understand that there would be difficulties in deciding
> whether, say, a Neandertal had a human mind. But, if a N. had a
> human mind, why wouldn't that come about in precisely the same
> way that a modern human gets one, by an act of Divine creation?
>
Here is where Rahner comes into play. I will pull my references from Dr.
Fischer's site and give you the chapter and section numbers from his
synopsis.
He begins by stating that man cannot be reduced to the sum of his parts.
No matter how hard, or precisely, we measure we cannot take in the
totality of what "man" is. (This is in Ch. 1, part 2B, but is not in the
synopsis.) From here he takes on the idea that man is capable of
"transcendence" (Ch 1, part 2A), which is defined as the capacity to
question beyond their finitude, and so move beyond it. (Ch 1, part 3A)
Rahner gives the example that each time we find the answer to a question
new questions arise. No matter how much we learn there is always more to
learn-- this is the receding horizon. Beyond the horizon is the
transcendent- which ultimately defines as God. (Ch. 2, parts C & E)
Our movement towards the transcendent--the receding horizon--is part of
what defines us as "man." Our ability to move beyond ourselves and move
towards the transcendent sets us apart from the rest of creation. What
makes man "man" is when he senses their is something beyond himself.
Which leads to the final point: when a being, no matter what kind, is
able to see the world beyond himself it has become "man" (ie a
responsive being). If you can show that Neadertal was able to be
responsive to the world around them then I would argue that he was man
just as we are (in fact I do argue it quite often).
You could argue a evolutionary element to this idea, but theologically,
through these definitions, you would point to a single time or event
when an "animal" became responsive. Rahner's theology does not depend on
monogenism, which is why he can argue this way. And teleology is a basic
tenet of Catholicism, thus the movement towards God.
It is very difficult to strip the theology out of Rahner, as I am trying
to do. I am trying to make it as concise as possible. I hope this helps,
though I fear it will not. I also hope that Wilkins doesn't jump on me.
:-)
> Tom S.
John Wilkins
> It is very difficult to strip the theology out of Rahner, as I am trying
> to do. I am trying to make it as concise as possible. I hope this helps,
> though I fear it will not. I also hope that Wilkins doesn't jump on me.
> :-)
Fear not. In this domain, you are the Jedi Master...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
TomS
<1fxfe8q.8mb6esh3l48sN%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com>,
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com stated..."
[...snip...]
Thank you again for your response.
I don't think that I have anything to add for the moment.
Tom S.
A Pagano
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:56:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> <1fxb23h.1uv1yrw8980yqN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>> >
>> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:57:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <1fxa7sh.sod9vai14tykN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>> >> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>> >> [...snip...]
>> >> >Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
>> >> >statement needs to be qualified. The genesis of the human body by
>> >> >evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
>> >> >man is a gift from God.
Pagano replies:
In his message to the Pont Academy of Sciences John Paul II made clear
that Pius XII's teaching concerning Evolution in "Humani Generis"
still stood and the Magisterium rested on that teaching's authority.
However, when paraphrasing Pius XII in his message to the Academy
members he left them (and others who read the message) with the
impression that Pius XII taught that the genesis of the human body via
Evolution was acceptable. Specifically John Paul II wrote, "In his
encyclical "Humani Generis," my predecessor Pius XII had already
stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine
of faith about man...."
Unfortunately if Pius XII thought there was no opposition between
evolution and the doctrine of faith about man he gave little
indication in "Humani Generis." Pius XII warned Catholics in "Humani
Generis" against treating unproven scientific theories in general and
Evolution in particular as if they were proven and certain. Pius XII
didn't give assent to Evolution; he merely gave Catholics (with
specific qualifications) the liberty to study the question AND placed
conditions on that study. In addition Pius XII pointed out in para 37
of "Humani Generis" that polygenesis (which is not ruled out by
Evolution and endorsed by many secularists) IS IN OPPOSITION with the
doctrine of faith.
Let's look at what Pius XII actually wrote concerning evolution in
"Humani Generis:"
From para 5: "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that
Evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of
natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously
support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in
continual evolution."
From para 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..."
More from Para 36: "Some, however, rashly transgress the
liberty of discussion when they act as if the origin of the human body
from pre-existing 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."
From para 37: "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."
<snipped>
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:56:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> <1fxb23h.1uv1yrw8980yqN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>> >
>> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:57:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> >> <1fxa7sh.sod9vai14tykN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>> >> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>> >> [...snip...]
>> >> >Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
>> >> >statement needs to be qualified.
Pagano replies:
After some problems with the English translation of John Paul II's
message to the Academy it seemed that most translators finally agreed
on, "...new knowledge has lead to the recognition of the theory of
evolution as something more than just a hypothesis." There's nothing
earth shattering about this claim and it is true. Empirical testing
and the discovery of some confirmatory evidence make ANY conjecture
more than an hypothesis. Evolutionary theory in some (but certainly
not all) of its claimed domain has found confirmatory observations.
As a result John Paul II acknowledging that evolution has garnered
some confirmatory evidence (that is, evolution is more than an
hypothesis) hardly leads to the conclusion----as many have
claimed----that John Paul II
(1) endorsed evolution,
(2) was implying that evolution was true and certain,
(3) was implying that evolution's status ("more than an hypothesis)
was sufficient for the Magisterium to change doctrine or reinterpret
Scripture, or
(4) was teaching its acceptance to the faithful.
After all John Paul II is well aware that even false theories in
history have been more than just an hypthesis.
>> >> >The genesis of the human body by
>> >> >evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
>> >> >man is a gift from God.
Pagano replies:
The problem with this is that no Pope, including John Paul II, has
ever taught or implied that the genesis of the human body is a solved
problem which would justify acceptance and assent by the Church.
Pius XII taught in "Humani Generis" that whether or not research into
the genesis of the human body reveals evolution to be the cause the
soul comes immediately from God. John Paul II simply repeats Pius
XII's teaching.
<snip>
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
Pagano replies:
Rahner is a theologian not a member of the Magisterium and his
theology is sometimes (perhaps often) off couse from Roman Church
doctrine. He (and others like him) seem to be of the opinion that
theology evolves to whatever direction they think it should evolve..
As such using Rahner to answer questions about the Roman Catholic
position is a little like asking Michael Denton (author of,
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) for the orthodox neoDarwinian
position.
>> >
>> >So it is more than just physical evolution that concerns the Church. The
>> >"fact" of physical evolution is generally accepted.
Pagano replies:
Evolution in some narrowly defined sense is fact. However, neither
the genesis of man nor any other creature for that matter by purely
evolutionary means is fact. The genesis of life itself by purely
materialistic means is also NOT a fact. So where does macaddicted get
this notion that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the purely
materialistic genesis of man as fact when it is not a scientific fact?
He certainly wouldn't get it from reading Pius XII's "Humani Generis"
or John Paul II's message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Pius
XII wrote in "Humani Generis," that
1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
the origin of all things..."
2. Catholics may research Evolution and its connection to the genesis
of the human body only if,
a. reasons favorable and unfavorable to Evolution be weighed
and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure,
and
b. provided that ALL are prepared to submit to the judgement
of the Church.
3. Some Catholics have rashly transgressed this liberty to
investigate by acting as if the genesis of the human body by Evolution
were already certain and proved.
4. Some CAtholics act as if there were nothing in the sources of
Divine Revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
claims about the genesis of the human body.
John Paul II repeats (1) and (4) in his message to the members of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Undoubtedly macaddicted is getting his information from theologians
like Rahner who have long ago stopped worrying about the Magisterium
and Catholic doctrine.
<snip>
Regards,
T Pagano
TomS
<o3e1hv0nvovldlfof...@4ax.com>, A stated..."
>
>On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0000 (UTC),
>macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>
>>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:56:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>>> <1fxb23h.1uv1yrw8980yqN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>>> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>>> >
>>> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:57:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>>> >> <1fxa7sh.sod9vai14tykN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>>> >> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>>> >> [...snip...]
>>> >> >Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
>>> >> >statement needs to be qualified.
>
> Pagano replies:
>After some problems with the English translation of John Paul II's
>message to the Academy it seemed that most translators finally agreed
>on, "...new knowledge has lead to the recognition of the theory of
>evolution as something more than just a hypothesis." There's nothing
My understanding is that the message was written in French,
and that the phrase in question was "plus qu'une hypothese",
which means "more than a hypothesis". The original English
translation was "more than one hypothesis", which would be, so
my sources tell me, "plus d'une hypothese". I would appreciate
information from anyone with better French than mine, and from
anyone with information about the original language of the
message. Either confirmation or correction is welcomed.
One thing which I have often pointed out is that there is a
source of possible confusion here. Are we speaking of "the human
body" as individual, or as a collective? Evolution is about the
origins of populations (including species). Developmental biology
is about the origins of individuals.
I trust that no one has major objections to the scientific
investigations into the origins of an individual's body. In
particular, that no one sees a philosophical or theological
problem with accepting a fully materialistic, naturalistic
explanation of that kind of origin. Including, for example,
the idea that chance (for example, in the mixing of genes
from parents, or random mutations of the genes) and fixed
biological laws both have a part in that development.
And I think that it is a majority opinion and orthodox
Christian opinion that the human soul is individually
created, not inherited.
So that, it would seem to me, any question about the human
soul would, if there were any problem at all with science,
would be most problematic for developmental biology (or
genetics, or biochemistry). If people have made their peace
with developmental biology, it would seem to me that the
question of evolution would not be much of a problem at all.
Particularly, may I add, as the idea of a creation event
taking place only in the "long ago and far away", at the
time of the origin of "human-kind" only, would involve a
kind of "deism", rather than orthodox monotheism.
Tom S.
wf...@ptnosm.com
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0000 (UTC),
>macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>
>>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:56:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>>> <1fxb23h.1uv1yrw8980yqN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>>> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>>> >
>>> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:57:22 +0000 (UTC), in article
>>> >> <1fxa7sh.sod9vai14tykN%macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com>,
>>> >> macad...@REMOVETHISattbi.com stated..."
>>> >> [...snip...]
>>> >> >Though the Pope has said that "evolution is more than A theory," the
>>> >> >statement needs to be qualified.
>
> Pagano replies:
>After some problems with the English translation of John Paul II's
>message to the Academy it seemed that most translators finally agreed
>on, "...new knowledge has lead to the recognition of the theory of
>evolution as something more than just a hypothesis." There's nothing
>earth shattering about this claim and it is true. Empirical testing
>and the discovery of some confirmatory evidence make ANY conjecture
>more than an hypothesis. Evolutionary theory in some (but certainly
>not all) of its claimed domain has found confirmatory observations.
what pagano ignores is that he, and other medievalists, think science
has made evolution FALSE. that contradicts what the pope has said.
>
>As a result John Paul II acknowledging that evolution has garnered
>some confirmatory evidence (that is, evolution is more than an
>hypothesis) hardly leads to the conclusion----as many have
>claimed----that John Paul II
>(1) endorsed evolution,
>(2) was implying that evolution was true and certain,
>(3) was implying that evolution's status ("more than an hypothesis)
>was sufficient for the Magisterium to change doctrine or reinterpret
>Scripture, or
>(4) was teaching its acceptance to the faithful.
>After all John Paul II is well aware that even false theories in
>history have been more than just an hypthesis.
the magisterium rarely takes a position on science. one can read the
entire catechism and find no references at all to current science.
pagano's attempt to backpedal..saying that evolution is against
christianity...is thus a mark of his incoherence.
>
>
>
>>> >> >The genesis of the human body by
>>> >> >evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
>>> >> >man is a gift from God.
>
> Pagano replies:
>The problem with this is that no Pope, including John Paul II, has
>ever taught or implied that the genesis of the human body is a solved
>problem which would justify acceptance and assent by the Church.
no pope believes or teaches anything about the physical origins of
humanity. certainly none is a creationist. there is no official
catholic teaching saying that humans were specially created, or that
the earth is 6000 years old. those are fundie PROTESTANT beliefs, and
the pope aint protestant, nor is he a fundie.
>
>Pius XII taught in "Humani Generis" that whether or not research into
>the genesis of the human body reveals evolution to be the cause the
>soul comes immediately from God. John Paul II simply repeats Pius
>XII's teaching.
and evolution says precisely nothing...nothing at all...about the
soul.
so pagano's assertion that evolution is falsified is wrong
pagano's assertion that evolution is believed only by 'secularists' is
wrong
pagano's assertion that evolution is anti-christian is wrong.
pagano's assertion that the catholic church teaches creationism is
wrong.
pagano is wrong in every single thing he says about catholic teaching.
>
><snip>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------
Steven J.
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0000 (UTC),
> macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>
with the extension of evolution to matters of religion, morality, and
social order. Pius XII explicitly mentions communism as an example of
the "audacious" extension of evolutionary theory to support "continual
evolution" in matters not related to biology. He does not mention
cosmology or geology, but I doubt very much that he had any objections
to these being in continual flux or evolution; how could that affect
any question of morals or faith?
>
> From para 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..."
>
required special creation of the soul. This, again, is an attempt to
establish a dichotomy. The Bible's statements on the material world,
and material origins, are difficult to reconcile with scientific
theories on these subjects, and the Pope urged great caution in
endorsing evolutionary origins for species and their adaptions. But
he explicitly noted which subjects were fixed by dogma, and not
subject to revision by scientific research, and which subjects were
not. There seems no point to allowing an inquiry into something, if
you're minded to declare in advance what its conclusions must be. In
allowing "research and discussions ... with regard to the doctrine of
Evolution," the Pope is implicitly allowing the determination that
that "doctrine" is correct. He held that the matter was undecided in
his day; he did not rule that it must forever be undecided, and it
would in no wise be contrary to this paragraph for a later Pope to
declare that evolution was no longer a mere hypothesis.
>
> More from Para 36: "Some, however, rashly transgress the
> liberty of discussion when they act as if the origin of the human body
> from pre-existing 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."
>
same thing as demanding that a theory be rejected as false, or even as
demanding that it be regarded forever as undecided and undecidable.
Unless Pius XII was either unable to write clearly, or afraid to do
so, he was clearly allowing for the possibility that even men
proceeding wih the greatest moderation and caution might decide that
Divine Revelation had to be interpreted to allow for common descent
and an evolutionary origin to human bodies, as it had been interpreted
to allow for heliocentrism (and, though you do not admit it, for an
old Earth).
>
> From para 37: "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."
>
of "true men." If it refers to biological humanity, there is a
problem reconciling evolutionary theory to this paragraph, since AFAIK
none of the bottlenecks that human ancestry is believed to have gone
through are held to been reduced to only two individuals. If, OTOH,
"true men" refers to men with immortal souls, then it does not seem to
require anything except a belief that all living humans inherited
their souls from a literal Adam. In any case, you ought to note the
difference between demanding caution in arriving at a conclusion (i.e.
that common descent of humans and other animals is factual), and
demanding that a conclusion never be reached at all (i.e. that there
is an evolutionary origin for the immortal soul).
>
> <snipped>
Frank J
You mean Michael Denton, author of, "Nature's Destiny," (1998) where
he admits common descent, and essentially that he was mistaken about
it in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985). I'd love to see a score
sheet as to how often anti-evolutionists refer to Denton's earlier
book vs. his later one. Something to hide, perhaps?
>
> >> >
> >> >So it is more than just physical evolution that concerns the Church. The
> >> >"fact" of physical evolution is generally accepted.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolution in some narrowly defined sense is fact. However, neither
> the genesis of man nor any other creature for that matter by purely
> evolutionary means is fact. The genesis of life itself by purely
> materialistic means is also NOT a fact. So where does macaddicted get
> this notion that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the purely
> materialistic genesis of man as fact when it is not a scientific fact?
I don't know what mac thinks, but my interpretation is that the RCC
does not accept the purely "materialistic genesis" of man or any other
living thing. But the RCC has said many times that evolution is the
process God uses to create one species from another. Man is only
special with regard to the soul, which is associated with the
individual, not the species, and is not in any way inconsistent with
evolution, only your false caricature of it.
If you have a better theory, please run it by the RCC and see if they
buy it. Keep in mind that Gish, Ross, etc. tried and failed, so
unless yours fits the evidence much better (in which case you may want
to refute Gish and Ross too), you might want to save your breath, and
continue just misrepresenting evolution to an audience that is less
science-literate than RCC leaders.
>
> He certainly wouldn't get it from reading Pius XII's "Humani Generis"
> or John Paul II's message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Pius
> XII wrote in "Humani Generis," that
> 1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
> not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
> the origin of all things..."
> 2. Catholics may research Evolution and its connection to the genesis
> of the human body only if,
> a. reasons favorable and unfavorable to Evolution be weighed
> and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure,
> and
> b. provided that ALL are prepared to submit to the judgement
> of the Church.
> 3. Some Catholics have rashly transgressed this liberty to
> investigate by acting as if the genesis of the human body by Evolution
> were already certain and proved.
> 4. Some CAtholics act as if there were nothing in the sources of
> Divine Revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
> claims about the genesis of the human body.
>
> John Paul II repeats (1) and (4) in his message to the members of the
> Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
This must certainly be taken out of context, because it doesn't jibe
with
his comment: "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
significant argument in favour of this theory."
The "neither sought nor fabricated" in particular, is an obvious dig
at those anti-evolutionists who pretend that there is an evolution
"conspiracy."
A Pagano
Pagano replies:
None of these english translations would justify the hyperbolic claims
that John Paul II was elevating Evolutionism to a status of certainty
or that he was giving personal assent to Evolutionism, or that he was
teaching the faithful to accept Evolutionism.
I suggest you look elsewhere than macaddicted to information about
Catholic Church doctrine. As near as I can determine macaddicted has
misrepresented and misinterpreted practically every Church document
and doctrine he has ever discussed.
Pagano replies:
Tom S is entitled to use the word "evolution" anyway he choses.
However, I'm not aware of anyone limiting the scope of the normally
over-arching label to only the origin of populations. Evolutionism,
as I understand it, is a theoretical framework which offers
hypothetical explanations for all biological changes whether in
individuals or within populations. Evolutionism is a framework not a
scientific discipline. All the scientific disciplines (like
developmental biology) are brought to bear using evolutionism as the
basis of experimentation. Finally changes within individuals are the
source of change within populations.
> I trust that no one has major objections to the scientific
>investigations into the origins of an individual's body.
Pagano replies:
No one has objections to investigations. The Church has raised
objections to those who assert that and act as if Evolutionism is true
and certain when it is neither.
> In
>particular, that no one sees a philosophical or theological
>problem with accepting a fully materialistic, naturalistic
>explanation of that kind of origin.
Pagano replies:
There is a theological problem with polygenism which is not ruled out
by evolutionism, may be implied by it, and is endorsed by some
evolutionists. The philosophy of naturalism presupposed by purely
naturalistic evolution is flatly contradicted by Christian theology.
>Including, for example,
>the idea that chance (for example, in the mixing of genes
>from parents, or random mutations of the genes) and fixed
>biological laws both have a part in that development.
Pagano replies:
This mixing and shuffling of EXISTING genetic information from one
generation to the next has nothing to do with the genesis of the human
body from some non human predecessor. It does explain (because of
the tremendous variability within the collective human genome) why
every human being is unique; a fact which Tom S seems to imply isn't
the case.
> And I think that it is a majority opinion and orthodox
>Christian opinion that the human soul is individually
>created, not inherited.
>
> So that, it would seem to me, any question about the human
>soul would, if there were any problem at all with science,
>would be most problematic for developmental biology (or
>genetics, or biochemistry). If people have made their peace
>with developmental biology, it would seem to me that the
>question of evolution would not be much of a problem at all.
Pagano replies:
I seriously doubt that it is the majority secular opinion that the
soul and its implications are introduced by God into each human body.
Quite the contrary secularists, guided by the philsophy of Naturalism
explicitly state that the human being in its totality is completely
explanable in materialistic terms.
That the soul is not an evolutionary component has never been in
dispute by anyone. However, as John Paul II points out in his Oct 96
message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Evolutionism has
implications about man which intersect which Revelation. And
evolutionists have implied that the so-called soul can be explained in
materialistic terms. The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church
has clearly said that such claims are in opposition to the Church.
> Particularly, may I add, as the idea of a creation event
>taking place only in the "long ago and far away", at the
>time of the origin of "human-kind" only, would involve a
>kind of "deism", rather than orthodox monotheism.
Pagano replies:
I wasn't aware that Deism had any formal (or even informal) doctrine
about creation or had any revelatory scriptures about the matter? On
the other the Christian Scripture does produce Revelations about the
origin of the world and the creation of life in it. Tom S sounds a
not a little confused.
Regards,
T Pagano
macaddicted
Actually, he's dead.
> and his
> theology is sometimes (perhaps often) off couse from Roman Church
> doctrine.
Really? Where did you get this from? Rahner has been a MAJOR influence
on Catholic theology in the later half of the 20th century. Sure, he did
the Athanasius thing during Vatican II (which wasn't too much of a
problem as he was from Germany ;-) ) but he had a tremendous effect on
the documents of Vatican II. He was editor of the _Enchiridion
Symbolorum_, the sourcebook of Church documents, from its 28th to 31st
editions. He was the founder of the journal Concilium. His theology of
the relationship between man and God, expounded in his multi-volume
_Theological Investigations_, makes reference or reaction to his
theology almost essential. He was editor and contributor to the
_Sacramentum Mundi_, a work that EVERY systematic theology professor I
have had has pointed me towards as a first source in finding concise
explanations of Catholic systematic theology.
All in all, I think Rahner had a pretty good grasp of Catholic doctrinal
teaching.
> He (and others like him) seem to be of the opinion that
> theology evolves to whatever direction they think it should evolve..
We've been down this path. Dogma doesn't change. People and societies do
change. In order to make the dogma relevant to the people of a
particular age, the way in which the dogma is taught, not the dogma
itself, changes.
OBTW, I would love to hear your explanation of Thomism.
> As such using Rahner to answer questions about the Roman Catholic
> position is a little like asking Michael Denton (author of,
> "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) for the orthodox neoDarwinian
> position.
See above. You should probably also contact the head of the systmatic
theology department at my school to voice your concerns.
>
> >> >
> >> >So it is more than just physical evolution that concerns the Church. The
> >> >"fact" of physical evolution is generally accepted.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolution in some narrowly defined sense is fact. However, neither
> the genesis of man nor any other creature for that matter by purely
> evolutionary means is fact.
Your arguement here is with evolution, which I will leave to others. As
to the evolution of man see "ontological discontinuity" in JPII's 1996
address.
> The genesis of life itself by purely
> materialistic means is also NOT a fact. So where does macaddicted get
> this notion that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the purely
> materialistic genesis of man as fact when it is not a scientific fact?
Aw geez Pagano. The BODY of man may have come about through evolutionary
means, but the RELATIONAL BEING of man is a gift from God.
>
> He certainly wouldn't get it from reading Pius XII's "Humani Generis"
> or John Paul II's message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Pius
> XII wrote in "Humani Generis," that
> 1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
> not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
> the origin of all things..."
Seeing as I have been refering to Humani for some time now I already
know this.
> 2. Catholics may research Evolution and its connection to the genesis
> of the human body only if,
> a. reasons favorable and unfavorable to Evolution be weighed
> and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure,
> and
> b. provided that ALL are prepared to submit to the judgement
> of the Church.
Which sounds like make sure the scientists do their science openly and
honestly, and the Church is the arbiter of doctrine. What else is new?
> 3. Some Catholics have rashly transgressed this liberty to
> investigate by acting as if the genesis of the human body by Evolution
> were already certain and proved.
You'll let me know when Ratzinger comes out against evolution.
> 4. Some CAtholics act as if there were nothing in the sources of
> Divine Revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
> claims about the genesis of the human body.
>
Oh wait, I need the Bible to learn about the presence of man before God.
Thanks for telling me, I had never heard that at school.
> John Paul II repeats (1) and (4) in his message to the members of the
> Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
>
If you are going to keep this up I am going to program "ontological
discountinuity" in a hotkey.
> Undoubtedly macaddicted is getting his information from theologians
> like Rahner who have long ago stopped worrying about the Magisterium
> and Catholic doctrine.
>
Uh huh. Yep, that's true. Which is why he was put in charge of the
Enchiridion and was an influential theologian at Vatican II. Oh, yeah,
and in writing the foundation of documents released by Vatican II, a
magesterial council initiated by the Pope.
BTW, the Karl Rahner Society meets during the convention of the Catholic
Theological Society of America. My understanding is that they are a
cabal (I'm not sure, I just joined. Haven't gotten my secret decoder
ring yet.) who come together to plan the downfall of the Church. After
all, everybody has to have a hobby.
macaddicted
Well, at best the science of evolution (not abiogenesis, BTW). There is
a lot that comes along with the science of evolution (Daniel? Richard?
You out there?) with which the Church is always going to have seemingly
insurmountable differences. I haven't seen any theologian who comes
close to closing the gap.
> (2) was implying that evolution was true and certain,
Yep.
> (3) was implying that evolution's status ("more than an hypothesis)
> was sufficient for the Magisterium to change doctrine or reinterpret
> Scripture, or
Not sure what you mean by this. If you are refering to the 1909 PBC
document then just let us know.
> (4) was teaching its acceptance to the faithful.
Again, as I have said many times before, JPII mentions the ontological
differences between evolution and Catholicism when it comes to humanity.
(By "humanity" I mean more than just the physical body of man.)
> After all John Paul II is well aware that even false theories in
> history have been more than just an hypthesis.
>
>
>
> >> >> >The genesis of the human body by
> >> >> >evolutionary means is acceptable, but the soul, spirit, the essence of
> >> >> >man is a gift from God.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The problem with this is that no Pope, including John Paul II, has
> ever taught or implied that the genesis of the human body is a solved
> problem which would justify acceptance and assent by the Church.
>
This seems somewhat arguementative to me. The Church has a major problem
with the explanation of the rise of humanity based solely on science.
But the Church has backed away somewhat from judging science, turning
instead to watching he ideas that arise from science. When it comes to
Catholic theology Dennett and Dawkins need not apply (though you already
knew that...)
> Pius XII taught in "Humani Generis" that whether or not research into
> the genesis of the human body reveals evolution to be the cause the
> soul comes immediately from God. John Paul II simply repeats Pius
> XII's teaching.
>
Isn't that what I said?
macaddicted
If you could, would you please clarify what you mean by "specially
created?" I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure.
> or that
> the earth is 6000 years old. those are fundie PROTESTANT beliefs, and
> the pope aint protestant, nor is he a fundie.
>
> >
> >Pius XII taught in "Humani Generis" that whether or not research into
> >the genesis of the human body reveals evolution to be the cause the
> >soul comes immediately from God. John Paul II simply repeats Pius
> >XII's teaching.
>
> and evolution says precisely nothing...nothing at all...about the
> soul.
This is true. But evolution is extended by some to comment on the
person. Saying that the body evolved but that spark of humanity is a
gift from God seems incoherent to the extremes of both science and
faith. It is a fine line the Church is still trying to work out.
>
[snip]
>
>
> ---------------------------
> to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
> and enter 'wf3h' in the field
macaddicted
And I had such a nice vacation.
Ironically, and the irony is unfortunate, Pagano and I do agree on some
things. This is one of them. JPII has, in essence, acknowledged that the
science of evolution has a more firm foundation than it did in Pius
XII's time. However, pretty much everyone misses the statements he made
at the end of his address on the ontological differences between
evolution and Catholicism when it comes the the human person as opposed
to the human body.
> I suggest you look elsewhere than macaddicted to information about
> Catholic Church doctrine. As near as I can determine macaddicted has
> misrepresented and misinterpreted practically every Church document
> and doctrine he has ever discussed.
Well, blame it on every professor who's class I have attended.
[snip]
wf...@ptnosm.com
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com (macaddicted) wrote:
><wf...@ptnosm.com> wrote:
>>
>> no pope believes or teaches anything about the physical origins of
>> humanity. certainly none is a creationist. there is no official
>> catholic teaching saying that humans were specially created,
>
>If you could, would you please clarify what you mean by "specially
>created?" I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure.
specially created is fundie-speak for the creation of human beings
apart from origins through evolution.
>
>> >
>> >Pius XII taught in "Humani Generis" that whether or not research into
>> >the genesis of the human body reveals evolution to be the cause the
>> >soul comes immediately from God. John Paul II simply repeats Pius
>> >XII's teaching.
>>
>> and evolution says precisely nothing...nothing at all...about the
>> soul.
>
>This is true. But evolution is extended by some to comment on the
>person. Saying that the body evolved but that spark of humanity is a
>gift from God seems incoherent to the extremes of both science and
>faith. It is a fine line the Church is still trying to work out.
>
it's incoherent to science because science, much to the dismay of
creationists, is extremely limited in its scope. that's one reason
it's been so successful..
wf...@ptnosm.com
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:25:08 +0000 (UTC), TomS
>>
>> My understanding is that the message was written in French,
>>and that the phrase in question was "plus qu'une hypothese",
>>which means "more than a hypothesis". The original English
>>translation was "more than one hypothesis", which would be, so
>>my sources tell me, "plus d'une hypothese". I would appreciate
>>information from anyone with better French than mine, and from
>>anyone with information about the original language of the
>>message. Either confirmation or correction is welcomed.
>
> Pagano replies:
>None of these english translations would justify the hyperbolic claims
>that John Paul II was elevating Evolutionism to a status of certainty
>or that he was giving personal assent to Evolutionism, or that he was
>teaching the faithful to accept Evolutionism.
the pope does not think evolution contradicts faith. tony thinks it
does. tony is constantly calling evolution the belief of 'secularists
(sic)'. unless pagano's saying the pope is a secularist, he's got a
problem with his terminology.
>
>I suggest you look elsewhere than macaddicted to information about
>Catholic Church doctrine. As near as I can determine macaddicted has
>misrepresented and misinterpreted practically every Church document
>and doctrine he has ever discussed.
pagano was unaware, until i called it to his attention, the teachings
of the church in the 'catechism' about the nature of scripture. it's
ironic he claims someone else is ignorant.
>
>
>> In
>>particular, that no one sees a philosophical or theological
>>problem with accepting a fully materialistic, naturalistic
>>explanation of that kind of origin.
>
> Pagano replies:
>There is a theological problem with polygenism which is not ruled out
>by evolutionism, may be implied by it, and is endorsed by some
>evolutionists. The philosophy of naturalism presupposed by purely
>naturalistic evolution is flatly contradicted by Christian theology.
naturalism is not a part of science. pagano tries to take the basis of
science...that it investigates ONLY natural events and causes...and
tries to turn it around into saying that those who accept evolution
think only the natural exists.
his logic is, of course, faulty.
>
>>
>> So that, it would seem to me, any question about the human
>>soul would, if there were any problem at all with science,
>>would be most problematic for developmental biology (or
>>genetics, or biochemistry). If people have made their peace
>>with developmental biology, it would seem to me that the
>>question of evolution would not be much of a problem at all.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I seriously doubt that it is the majority secular opinion that the
>soul and its implications are introduced by God into each human body.
>Quite the contrary secularists, guided by the philsophy of Naturalism
>explicitly state that the human being in its totality is completely
>explanable in materialistic terms.
which has nothing to do with evolution. nor, for that matter, with
christian theology.
the pope stated that the origin of the human soul was not via
evolution.
evolution never addresses the concept of the soul.
pagano is trying to warp and bend evolutionary biology into something
it is not.
>
>That the soul is not an evolutionary component has never been in
>dispute by anyone.
yet pagano keeps telling us how evolution is false because it destroys
christian faith.
tony's been caught in a fabrication and now is backpedaling.
Steven J.
>
> > My understanding is that the message was written in French,
> >and that the phrase in question was "plus qu'une hypothese",
> >which means "more than a hypothesis". The original English
> >translation was "more than one hypothesis", which would be, so
> >my sources tell me, "plus d'une hypothese". I would appreciate
> >information from anyone with better French than mine, and from
> >anyone with information about the original language of the
> >message. Either confirmation or correction is welcomed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> None of these english translations would justify the hyperbolic claims
> that John Paul II was elevating Evolutionism to a status of certainty
> or that he was giving personal assent to Evolutionism, or that he was
> teaching the faithful to accept Evolutionism.
>
> I suggest you look elsewhere than macaddicted to information about
> Catholic Church doctrine. As near as I can determine macaddicted has
> misrepresented and misinterpreted practically every Church document
> and doctrine he has ever discussed.
>
and your and macaddicted's comments on them. Thus far, his
representation and interpretation of these documents seems far more
plausible than yours.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > One thing which I have often pointed out is that there is a
> >source of possible confusion here. Are we speaking of "the human
> >body" as individual, or as a collective? Evolution is about the
> >origins of populations (including species). Developmental biology
> >is about the origins of individuals.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Tom S is entitled to use the word "evolution" anyway he choses.
> However, I'm not aware of anyone limiting the scope of the normally
> over-arching label to only the origin of populations. Evolutionism,
> as I understand it, is a theoretical framework which offers
> hypothetical explanations for all biological changes whether in
> individuals or within populations. Evolutionism is a framework not a
> scientific discipline. All the scientific disciplines (like
> developmental biology) are brought to bear using evolutionism as the
> basis of experimentation. Finally changes within individuals are the
> source of change within populations.
>
alleles the parents don't possess because of mutations to germ cells
that, after all, take place in the parent's body. But note that these
mutations don't change any characteristics of the parent (as somatic
mutations -- which can't be passed on to offspring -- might), and the
germ-line mutations aren't *changes* to the offspring, since they
account for the only genome the offspring has.
Evolution is defined as the change in gene frequencies within a
population (taking into account that zero and 100% are both
frequencies -- new genes can arise, and old ones go extinct, in the
course of evolution). It doesn't make much sense to talk about
changes in the frequencies of genes in a single individual.
Individuals don't evolve, they develop.
Certainly there are many biological changes in individuals which are
not evolution. The entire course of embryology, sexual maturation,
developmental abnormalities occasioned by environmental causes,
injuries and disease are all biological changes, and none of them fall
under the common definition of evolution. Evolutionary theory
explains them only to the extent that it explains how entire
populations come to share these traits.
It is the biological changes in breeding *groups* of organisms that
fall under evolutionary theory, from the development of distinctive
subspecies, to the development of new species, genera, families, and
so forth. "New organs and structures" don't "evolve" in a single
individual; they develop from the spread and accumulation throughout
the population of beneficial variations on old organs and structures.
>
> > I trust that no one has major objections to the scientific
> >investigations into the origins of an individual's body.
>
> Pagano replies:
> No one has objections to investigations. The Church has raised
> objections to those who assert that and act as if Evolutionism is true
> and certain when it is neither.
>
Really? It seems to me that John Paul II has been quite willing to
crack down on Catholic teachers, from Hans Kung to the liberation
theologians of Latin America, whose views he finds contrary to dogma.
It also seems to me that he has been quite tolerant of Catholic
schools, Catholic scholars, and even Catholic theologians acting as if
evolutionary theory were true. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by
"evolutionism" -- whether you use it as synonymous with "evolutionary
theory," in which case your statement seems to me false, or to mean
some extension of biological evolution to theological and social
evolution, which the Pope indeed seems opposed to, but which is not a
matter of vast concern to biologists.
>
> > In
> >particular, that no one sees a philosophical or theological
> >problem with accepting a fully materialistic, naturalistic
> >explanation of that kind of origin.
>
> Pagano replies:
> There is a theological problem with polygenism which is not ruled out
> by evolutionism, may be implied by it, and is endorsed by some
> evolutionists. The philosophy of naturalism presupposed by purely
> naturalistic evolution is flatly contradicted by Christian theology.
>
This does not address TomS's point, and again I cannot tell if you are
deliberately evading his point, or cannot grasp it. There is no
Church dogma on human embryology, no demand that "supernatural causes"
be accepted as having anything to do with why individual humans have
the individual bodies they do. Being creatures of God, as individual
humans, does not seem to entail any sort of direct miraculous
intervention in the origin of any human individual.
It is not entirely clear why what is true of the individual should not
be equally true of the species as a whole -- the characteristics of
our bodies do not need to be explained by supernatural causes.
>
> >Including, for example,
> >the idea that chance (for example, in the mixing of genes
> >from parents, or random mutations of the genes) and fixed
> >biological laws both have a part in that development.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This mixing and shuffling of EXISTING genetic information from one
> generation to the next has nothing to do with the genesis of the human
> body from some non human predecessor. It does explain (because of
> the tremendous variability within the collective human genome) why
> every human being is unique; a fact which Tom S seems to imply isn't
> the case.
>
Please stop sputtering about "genetic information" until you can
define it coherently. Virtually every human born is born with
mutations -- alleles that don't exist in either parent. There are a
number of human alleles that have significant effects (and apparently
significant selective value) that have arisen within historical times,
from genes that reduce vulnerability to heart attacks to genes that
confer resistance to diseases like AIDS and plague.
>
> > And I think that it is a majority opinion and orthodox
> >Christian opinion that the human soul is individually
> >created, not inherited.
>
> >
> > So that, it would seem to me, any question about the human
> >soul would, if there were any problem at all with science,
> >would be most problematic for developmental biology (or
> >genetics, or biochemistry). If people have made their peace
> >with developmental biology, it would seem to me that the
> >question of evolution would not be much of a problem at all.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I seriously doubt that it is the majority secular opinion that the
> soul and its implications are introduced by God into each human body.
> Quite the contrary secularists, guided by the philsophy of Naturalism
> explicitly state that the human being in its totality is completely
> explanable in materialistic terms.
>
> That the soul is not an evolutionary component has never been in
> dispute by anyone. However, as John Paul II points out in his Oct 96
> message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Evolutionism has
> implications about man which intersect which Revelation. And
> evolutionists have implied that the so-called soul can be explained in
> materialistic terms. The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church
> has clearly said that such claims are in opposition to the Church.
>
Evolutionists, of course, either say that the soul is beyond the
purview of science, or else use the term "soul" to refer to something
clearly distinct from the immortal soul of Catholic theology. When,
e.g. Dawkins speaks of (IIRC) the "vegetative soul" he is referring to
a set of (presumably purely materialistic) processes shared by humans
with other living things, enabling us to exist as physically living
things. This is not the "soul" of which the Popes have spoken, nor is
it a concept at odds with Catholic theology. Many evolutionist, of
course, deny the existence of a nonphysical or immortal soul, but
none, I think, attempt to explain its existence in materialistic
terms.
>
> > Particularly, may I add, as the idea of a creation event
> >taking place only in the "long ago and far away", at the
> >time of the origin of "human-kind" only, would involve a
> >kind of "deism", rather than orthodox monotheism.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I wasn't aware that Deism had any formal (or even informal) doctrine
> about creation or had any revelatory scriptures about the matter? On
> the other the Christian Scripture does produce Revelations about the
> origin of the world and the creation of life in it. Tom S sounds a
> not a little confused.
>
Deism, as generally understood, denies special revelation, or any
possibility of knowledge about the Creator except what can be inferred
from His creation. It is likewise generally understood to deny that
the Creator has intervened in His creation in any way since creating
it. Are you aware of anything about beliefs you don't, personally,
hold?
Sarah Berel-Harrop
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:berfp...@drn.newsguy.com...
> My understanding is that the message was written in French,
> and that the phrase in question was "plus qu'une hypothese",
> which means "more than a hypothesis". The original English
> translation was "more than one hypothesis", which would be, so
> my sources tell me, "plus d'une hypothese". I would appreciate
> information from anyone with better French than mine, and from
> anyone with information about the original language of the
> message. Either confirmation or correction is welcomed.
>
Tom,
You are correct on all points. Additionally, the first
English translation contained a mistranslation of
"plus que" as if it were "plus de" (more than one).
As a point of interest, the t.o. archive pointer to
the Pope's speech points to the mistranslation.
This translation was rescinded. At the time we
discussed this on t.o. I could not figure out how
such a basic mistranslation occured. Since then
I have used translation software (admittedly, the
free one) that translated 96 as "four twenties ten"
so I am thinking maybe someone was using
translation software? : )
At any rate, Andy Schafley and I got into this
around the end of Decemver 2000. Emm Foster,
a native French speaker, was also involved. He
took it over to sci.lang.translation with a coy
example and was told he was plain wrong by a
number of native French speakers. I still think
that after he finishes trouncing "Darwinism" he
will return to save the French language from the
French.
Here is a message in which we are discussing this
phrase on t.o., with "my" translation, with comment
from Emm:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2637376457d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=3A493164.EBA1B6CA%40lib.drury.edu
If you want to see something funny, dig into that
thread and see Andy castigate me for not translating
word-for-word and Emm for not seeing the mistakes
in my translation, which he found by looking up the
French words in an English-French dictionary!
Her link to the French has moved. I for one would
love to find the speech again, in French.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 05/06/2003
TomS
<3f15f9f0$0$54849$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>, "Sarah stated..."
Thank you.
>
>If you want to see something funny, dig into that
>thread and see Andy castigate me for not translating
>word-for-word and Emm for not seeing the mistakes
>in my translation, which he found by looking up the
>French words in an English-French dictionary!
One of my favorite stories ...
A friend of mine had to take a test in "translating written French
into English", but he had never studied a bit of French. He reassured
me that it would be no problem, for he'd just look up the French words
in the dictionary (using a dictionary was allowed).
Needless to say, he failed the test. He complained to me: "Look at
this test, they obviously didn't even read the whole thing. The red
correction marks stop at the second sentence." I looked at the paper.
There were many red marks, which stopped where he had written (as I
recall) something like "hoot owl", where the French had some form of
"etre" (or some other verb). I asked him how he managed to get that
translation. He said, "The dictionary didn't have that word, so I just
found the word closest to it."
Emm Foster
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:16:22 +0000 (UTC), "Sarah Berel-Harrop"
<s...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
<...>
>
>Her link to the French has moved. I for one would
>love to find the speech again, in French.
>
Here is an other link to this text:
http://www.1000questions.net/fr/evolution/academie.html
Emm