Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
Steven L.
February 11, 2009
Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
Richard Owen in Rome
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
he claimed that Man descended from apes.
A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution
was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is
the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of
the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final
blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse
the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher
power” for the complexities of life.
Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th
anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it
had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as
“poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed
at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University,
but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or
theological issue, organisers said.
The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and
science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on the
Pope’s reference to an “intelligent project” as proof that he favoured
their views.
Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory
appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop
Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view
of Creation were complementary.
Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian
University, said that no scholar could “remain indifferent” to the 200th
anniversary of Darwin’s birth tomorrow. There was, however, “no question
of celebrating” it.
The Vatican would “take the measure of an event, which has left its mark
for ever on the history of science and has influenced the way we
understand our humanity”. The “time has come for a rigorous and
objective valuation” of Darwin by the Church, he said.
Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin – above all
Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were “totally
incompatible with a religious vision of reality”, as did proponents of
Intelligent Design.
Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman
Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation had begun
as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution as a valid
scientific approach to the development of humans. In 1996 John Paul II
said that it was “more than a hypothesis”.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical
Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by
St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had “never heard the
term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and that forms
of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas had made
similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.
He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled with
the mysteries of genetic codes and “whether the diversification of life
forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species”. As
for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our “genetic
inheritance” with apes, the remaining 3 per cent “is what makes us
unique”, including religion.
“I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian
theology,” Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.
Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among
Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught in state
schools.
The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with
a page on its website paying tribute to his “forgotten” work in his
local parish, to illustrate how science and Church need not be at odds.
Several pages celebrate Darwin’s “significant scientific progress” to
mark his bicentenary and also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of
Species.
The Church wants to correct the impression that Darwin’s relationship
with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not
condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith,
he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
[
St. Augustine also had some good advice for today's creationists:
"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or
the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who
is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or
observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all
things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such
matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard
by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving
him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain
himself from laughing....
"It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians
meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task
one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on
the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the
authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so
thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to
bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they
attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion,
and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they
quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."
]
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
snex
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
what exactly makes the vatican any more qualified to speak for all of
christianity than, say, ray martinez?
wf3h
> From The Times
> February 11, 2009
> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
i can just see tony pagano preparing the bull of excommunication for
all bishops, cardinals and the pope himself...how DARE they defy
pagano!!
Burkhard
Well, for one they give reasons for their belief that can be checked,
by looking at the authority they cite and the arguments they form on
the basis of these authorities.
And then according to the rules of the club, they do have some
authority for speak for Catholics - unlike the protestant churches,
where each believer is in unmediated conversation with God. The rest
is application of the rule of transitivity: Since evolution is
compatible with Catholicism (as per statement by the Vatican) and
since Catholics are Christians, evolution theory is compatible with
Christianity - though not necessarily all branches of it. "being
compatible with" is after all logically a very weak claim.
snex
funny, i went back and checked my bible. genesis still says god did it
in 6 days. its a catholic bible too. i dont see anywhere it saying
"dont take this literally." i also see a lot of other magical stories
in the bible that the catholic church *does* take literally. what are
the grounds again for deciding which magical stories to take literally
and which not to?
>
> And then according to the rules of the club, they do have some
> authority for speak for Catholics - unlike the protestant churches,
> where each believer is in unmediated conversation with God. The rest
> is application of the rule of transitivity: Since evolution is
> compatible with Catholicism (as per statement by the Vatican) and
> since Catholics are Christians, evolution theory is compatible with
> Christianity - though not necessarily all branches of it. "being
> compatible with" is after all logically a very weak claim.
"catholics are christians" is disputed by a lot of protestants. who
ever shall we believe??
Iain
> From The Times
> February 11, 2009
> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> Richard Owen in Rome
>
> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
> he claimed that Man descended from apes.
Wow. That took a while.
Does that mean they can start work on 20th century ideas now?
--Iain
Greg G.
Not so fast. What is the Church's position on Maxwell's Equations?
GCPAXS...@spammotel.com
That is an easy one, already outlined by St. Augustine:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about
the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world,
about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
and relative positions, . . . and this knowledge he holds to
as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which
people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it
to scorn."
In short easy words: when there is a scientific explanation
that is at odds with an interpretation of the Bible, that
interpretation (yours, in this case) is wrong.
Regards,
Karel
snex
so moses never parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never
walked on water, and never rose from the dead.
that may be well and good for you, but i doubt the catholics are ready
to concede these events.
Burkhard
From last week's Times higher:
Gavin D'Costa is professor in Catholic theology, University of Bristol
Darwin was misunderstood by many Christians, so much so that the
Anglican Church has issued an "apology" to mark Darwin's bicentenary
and the anniversary of On the Origin of Species, rather like the Roman
Catholic Church's apology to Galileo. So what is at stake? Three
things.
First, that Christians engage intelligently over scientific debate
with the quiet confidence that there cannot be a contradiction
regarding the truth of God and the truth of science.
Second, this a priori starting point means that if the latter throws
up a well-established finding over hundreds of years, then theology
needs to rethink whether it has trespassed over its legitimate
boundaries if it finds itself contradicted.
Third, if theology is confident of its truth and there is still a
contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
especially its presuppositions and context.
Darwin's followers have sometimes developed his theses into theories
that are in direct opposition to theological claims and this debate
remains unresolved.
So let's celebrate this pioneer, never be afraid of truth and continue
this important discussion.
Will in New Haven
If you were born every minute, believe all of them. Otherwise, believe
none of them.
--
Will in New Haven
snex
and right here is the problem. what possible source is there for
confidence in any theological claim?
John Stockwell
Catholicism is Christianity. Guess you're going to hell, Mr. Apostate.
M_P
> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
> > On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > From The Times
> > > > > > February 11, 2009
> > > > > > Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> > > > > > Richard Owen in Rome
>
> > > > > > The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
> > > > > > he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>
> > > > > > A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution
> > > > > > was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
> > > > > > Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is
> > > > > > the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of
> > > > > > the Pontifical Council for Culture. [...]
Apples and oranges ... localized, temporary suspensions of natural law
are very different from the sweeping intervention that would have been
required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution.
snex
why? does god have the power to do one but not the other? where can i
get an authoritative list of his powers?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<4f602800-b514-4fb2...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>):
"Requires Further Study."
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Robert Camp
A laudable approach, but...
> Third, if theology is confident of its truth and there is still a
> contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
> especially its presuppositions and context.
...this leaves me suspicious as to D'Costa's sincerity in the previous
paragraph. The "confidence" of theology is not, in any comparative
sense, equivalent with the "confidence" of science. The latter is all
about the kind of "rigorous scrutiny" he suggests, based as it is upon
empirical observation and hypothesis testing. Much as it gags me even
to appear to agree with snex, this bit sounds like someone who is very
conflicted as to whether theology should rethink anything.
> Darwin's followers have sometimes developed his theses into theories
> that are in direct opposition to theological claims and this debate
> remains unresolved.
This is simply wrong. If evolutionary biologists (can we dispense with
loaded terms like "Darwin's followers?") have developed theories that
are in opposition to theological claims then the debate is very much
resolved regarding empirical understanding of nature, something to
which theological claims are substantially irrelevant.
> So let's celebrate this pioneer, never be afraid of truth and continue
> this important discussion.
I completely agree, but I wonder if D'Costa really does.
RLC
macaddicted
Now that's not nice. After all Benedict is letting the Lefebvreists back
in. Maybe.
As far as I can tell Pags hasn't been able to comprehend Church
documents past 1910 or so, which would make him perfect for the SSPX.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
macaddicted
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
> There is really nothing to say until the Pope himself speaks.
They have. Pius XII and JPII have each spoken directly on the subject.
>
> > Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin – above all
> > Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were "totally
> > incompatible with a religious vision of reality", as did proponents of
> > Intelligent Design.
>
> "Good argument." In reponse:
>
> Professor Leclerc is mistaken.
No, you are merely clueless when it comes to RC theology.
>
> But in conclusion: The report, if true, is why the Protestant
> Reformation and Protestantism exists. We decided a long time ago that
> the Catholic Church is totally corrupt----the great whore of the Book
> of Revelation.
Ray, as usual, is clueless.
>It is a self evident fact that Darwinism and Genesis
> contradict diametrically.
As do the Synoptic Gospels and John. Your point?
> Any Cathlolic official who says otherwise is
> a whore, an Atheist ass kisser, a double agent of Satan.
Or perhaps better educated than you.
>
> Again, the evidence for the existence of the concept of Satan is
> massive and crystal clear.
>
> Ray
Uh huh.
macaddicted
Wow. If you are going to be sarcastic you need to catch a clue. See
"Humani Generis" from Pius XII. Skip to the end, you probably don't care
anymore than I do about modernism.
macaddicted
<http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm>
>
> >
> > And then according to the rules of the club, they do have some
> > authority for speak for Catholics - unlike the protestant churches,
> > where each believer is in unmediated conversation with God. The rest
> > is application of the rule of transitivity: Since evolution is
> > compatible with Catholicism (as per statement by the Vatican) and
> > since Catholics are Christians, evolution theory is compatible with
> > Christianity - though not necessarily all branches of it. "being
> > compatible with" is after all logically a very weak claim.
>
> "catholics are christians" is disputed by a lot of protestants. who
> ever shall we believe??
Burkhard
Well, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assumed
he meant those applications of evolutionary theory that are either
based on problematic analogies and/or sloppy thinking, such as certain
form of "vulgar social Darwinism" where sometimes scientists
"trespassed " into territory where they do not belong, in the sense of
deriving "oughts" where at best they had very speculative "is" (I
think there is a competition somewhere for the most ridiculous
"arwinist " explanation of behavior my favourite was always; why can't
woman read maps and why do man never ask for directions") .as soons as
these are translated into "scientifically informed policy advice", i
would grant the Church (and of course everybody with a set of ethical
beliefs) to scrutinse it on its own terms
Dave Fritzinger
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
>
> > Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were “totally
> > incompatible with a religious vision of reality”, as did proponents of
> > Intelligent Design.
>
>
> Professor Leclerc is mistaken.
>
> Reformation and Protestantism exists. We decided a long time ago that
> the Catholic Church is totally corrupt----the great whore of the Book
> contradict diametrically. Any Cathlolic official who says otherwise is
> a whore, an Atheist ass kisser, a double agent of Satan.
>
> massive and crystal clear.
>
> Ray
Looking in the mirror again, Ray?
Robert Camp
> On Feb 12, 11:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 7:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snIp>
> > First, that Christians engage intelligently over scientific debate
> > with the quiet confidence that there cannot be a contradiction
> > regarding the truth of God and the truth of science.
>
> > Second, this a priori starting point means that if the latter throws
> > up a well-established finding over hundreds of years, then theology
> > needs to rethink whether it has trespassed over its legitimate
> > boundaries if it finds itself contradicted.
>
> A laudable approach, but...
>
> > Third, if theology is confident of its truth and there is still a
> > contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
> > especially its presuppositions and context.
>
> ...this leaves me suspicious as to D'Costa's sincerity in the previous
> paragraph. The "confidence" of theology is not, in any comparative
> sense, equivalent with the "confidence" of science. The latter is all
> about the kind of "rigorous scrutiny" he suggests, based as it is upon
> empirical observation and hypothesis testing. Much as it gags me even
> to appear to agree with snex,
I disagree with snex much of the time but this was overstated and
unfair and I retract it.
Lee Jay
> It is a self evident fact that Darwinism and Genesis
> contradict diametrically.
Only to Christians with only one working neuron, capable of only "on"
or "off" states. To those with more, there are other options -
options that totally escape the aforementioned single-neuron types.
Lee Jay
Burkhard
> contradict diametrically.
Which I suppose is why the Anglican church apologised to Darwin too:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html
I like in particular this quote:
" It is hard to avoid the thought that the reaction against Darwin was
largely based on what we would now call the 'yuk factor' (an emotional
not an intellectual response) when he proposed a lineage from apes to
humans"
and
"Darwin was, in many ways, a model of good scientific method. He
observed the world around him, developed a theory which sought to
explain what he saw, and then set about a long and painstaking process
of gathering evidence that would either bear out, contradict, or
modify his theory. As a result, our understanding of the world is
expanded, but the scientific process continues. In science, hypotheses
are meant to be constantly tested. Subsequent generations have built
on Darwin’s work but have not significantly undermined his fundamental
theory of natural selection. There is nothing here that contradicts
Christian teaching. Jesus himself invited people to observe the world
around them and to reason from what they saw to an understanding of
the nature of God (Matthew 6: 25–33)."
wf3h
> On Feb 12, 8:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> There is really nothing to say until the Pope himself speaks.
>
he did. the conference is being held at the vatican with papal
approval. do you think he'd hold a pro-choice conference? so the
concept of evolution has the support of the pope
>
> But in conclusion: The report, if true, is why the Protestant
> Reformation and Protestantism exists. We decided a long time ago that
> the Catholic Church is totally corrupt--
ROFLMAO!! and what have the protestants done that's so great compared
to the catholics?
--the great whore of the Book
> of Revelation. It is a self evident fact that Darwinism and Genesis
> contradict diametrically. Any Cathlolic official who says otherwise is
> a whore, an Atheist ass kisser, a double agent of Satan.
wow....adman hates the jews...ray hates the protestants
gee ray...you gonna let tony pagano, whose ass has your lipmarks on
it...in on the fact you think his church is the whore of babylon?
snex
wrote:
from your link:
"What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places
itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern
is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. Modern
hermeneutics has made clear, as we have noted, the impossibility of
interpreting a text without starting from a "pre-understanding" of one
type or another."
sounds like creationism is back in. if god used evolution, why does
the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
VoiceOfReason
Kent Paul Dolan
that reality can be decided by a vote will now
have to do without counting Catholics among
the supporters of creationism or among the
opponents of the ToE.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
a vote, and that the majority of Christians support
creationism and oppose the theory of evolution are
now going to have to do without the votes of
Catholics, half of Christianity, roughly, as the
Holy Roman Church comes down firmly in favor of the
ToE and by implication rejects creationism.
A rousing chorus of "neener, neener, creationists,
we're number one" from ToE supporters will now be
entertained, but keep it seemly.
xanthian.
And a one, and a two, ...
macaddicted
No.
It's talking about hemeneutics and not exegesis. The two are not the
same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
(somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
original author intended to convey to the original audience.
In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
universe. Not how. Not when.
Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
Tradition in doing so.
>if god used evolution, why does
> the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
message being given.
You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
concepts evolution of the universe and life on earth from within the
cosmogony and geo-physical understanding that existed in the Ancient
Near East around 3-3,500 years ago.
snex
Read again... "What characterizes Catholic exegesis..."
> The two are not the
> same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> original author intended to convey to the original audience.
>
> In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> universe. Not how. Not when.
yes. when indeed? even if we cant reliably say it happened 6000 years
ago based on patriarch ages, the author of genesis clearly says it
happened over a course of 6 days. people try to fudge on what the
meaning of "day" is in the context, but the author made it clear
already. he specified that there was evening and morning between each
of these days. he clearly intended to convey 6 24-hour periods of
time.
>
> Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
> message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> Tradition in doing so.
neither revelation nor tradition are reliable guides to *truth*. why
isnt the primary interest of the catholic church the truth?
>
> >if god used evolution, why does
> > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
>
> An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> message being given.
why on earth would you think that human beings who were, for all
intents and purposes, genetically identical to modern 21st century
humans could not understand "a whole lot of years?" or what about "you
came from monkeys?" its not exactly correct, but its infinitely more
accurate than what genesis says. as it stands, most people *still*
think that evolution equates to "you came from monkeys," so had the
bible originally said this, we wouldnt have a problem, now would we?
>
> You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
> concepts evolution of the universe and life on earth from within the
> cosmogony and geo-physical understanding that existed in the Ancient
> Near East around 3-3,500 years ago.
"see the sun? one of those (all those little stars you see are the
same types of things as it, btw) blew up and made the earth. then some
slime formed, and turned into fish. then the fish turned into frogs,
which turned into lizards, which turned into mice, which turned into
monkeys, which turned into humans. the end"
it may not be strictly accurate, but again, had *that* been written in
genesis, you wouldnt see christians going around declaring that its
just metaphorical. youd be using it as proof that the authors of
genesis had divine knowledge.
Ilas
VoiceOfReason
> Those who pretend that reality can be decided by
> a vote, and that the majority of Christians support
> creationism and oppose the theory of evolution are
> now going to have to do without the votes of
> Catholics, half of Christianity, roughly, as the
> Holy Roman Church comes down firmly in favor of the
> ToE and by implication rejects creationism.
>
Add to them the Episcopals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, some
of the more rational Baptists, etc.
Steven L.
>
>> Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were “totally
>> incompatible with a religious vision of reality”, as did proponents of
>> Intelligent Design.
>
>
> Professor Leclerc is mistaken.
>
> Reformation and Protestantism exists. We decided a long time ago that
> of Revelation. It is a self evident fact that Darwinism and Genesis
> contradict diametrically. Any Cathlolic official who says otherwise is
> a whore, an Atheist ass kisser, a double agent of Satan.
Leaving your invective aside, what you're really saying is that
evolution is only incompatible with *your* interpretation of
*Protestantism*, not Christianity per se. (I say "your interpretation,"
because even among Protestants, I'll bet most Presbyterians and
Methodists accept evolution.)
Just what in your interpretation of Protestantism requires you to reject
evolution in favor of creationism? It would be enlightening to compare
yours to the interpretation of Christianity by Catholics.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
wf3h
> Leaving your invective aside, what you're really saying is that
> evolution is only incompatible with *your* interpretation of
> *Protestantism*, not Christianity per se. (I say "your interpretation,"
> because even among Protestants, I'll bet most Presbyterians and
> Methodists accept evolution.)
>
> Just what in your interpretation of Protestantism requires you to reject
> evolution in favor of creationism? It would be enlightening to compare
> yours to the interpretation of Christianity by Catholics.
>
ray almost seems to have invented a new religion. the bible is not the
'bible', but ray's unwritten view of the bible which stands above the
bible as the word of ray martinez.
certainly ray's spittle flecked invective...as much as i have disdain
for religion...bears no similarity to any version of christianity that
i know of
M_P
No, but it's entirely plausible that He has greater willingness to do
one than the other.
M_P
Since it's entirely plausible that He has greater willingness to do
the former than the latter, rejecting the latter in no way requires
rejecting the former.
Ilas
news:8375b004-c899-4035...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 13, 4:57 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
>> innews:4757f37b-af2c-416a-9bfd-f219440db8
> d...@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Feb 12, 1:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> so moses never parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin,jesusnever
>> >> walked on water, and never rose from the dead.
>>
>> > Apples and oranges ... localized, temporary suspensions of natural
>> > law are very different from the sweeping intervention that would
>> > have been required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Since it's entirely plausible that He has greater willingness to do
> the former than the latter,
Why is that plausible? He's god, he can do whatever the hell he likes.
> rejecting the latter in no way requires
> rejecting the former.
Only small suspensions of the known laws of physics, chemistry and biology
allowed?
Ilas
news:fe6cdd27-f88c-4ce5...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Only if you atribute human thought processes to something that obviously
isn't human (although he does seem to be a petty little bugger, according
to his autobiography). Funny how god always seems to think just the same
way as those who believe in him.
Steven L.
> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
>> On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> From The Times
>>>>>> February 11, 2009
>>>>>> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>>>>>> Richard Owen in Rome
>>>>>> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
>>>>>> he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>>>>>> A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution
>>>>>> was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
>>>>>> Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is
>>>>>> the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of
> walked on water, and never rose from the dead.
>
> to concede these events.
The Vatican certainly believes in one-time divine miracles, events which
violate natural scientific law. In fact, they have actually catalogued
a list of events they claim to be divine miracles. And I imagine that
the ones you cite would be considered such as well.
Evolution, having taken place over billions of years, is not a one-time
divine miracle and wouldn't belong in any list of miracles.
Steven L.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
>>>> On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> From The Times
>>>>>>>> February 11, 2009
>>>>>>>> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>>>>>>>> Richard Owen in Rome
>>>>>>>> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
>>>>>>>> he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>>>>>>>> A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution
>>>>>>>> was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
>>>>>>>> Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is
>>>>>>>> the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of
>> are very different from the sweeping intervention that would have been
>> required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution.
>
> get an authoritative list of his powers?
From the Vatican. Over the centuries, the Vatican has actually
catalogued lists of what they assert to be divine miracles. You can
actually find this stuff on the Vatican's official website! Look for
yourself.
Steven L.
> On Feb 12, 1:17 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 7:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
>>>> On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> From The Times
>>>>>>>> February 11, 2009
>>>>>>>> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>>>>>>>> Richard Owen in Rome
>>>>>>>> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
>>>>>>>> he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>>>>>>>> A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution
>>>>>>>> was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
>>>>>>>> Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is
>>>>>>>> the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of
>>> to concede these events.
>>
>> Gavin D'Costa is professor in Catholic theology, University of Bristol
>>
>> Darwin was misunderstood by many Christians, so much so that the
>> Anglican Church has issued an "apology" to mark Darwin's bicentenary
>> and the anniversary of On the Origin of Species, rather like the Roman
>> Catholic Church's apology to Galileo. So what is at stake? Three
>> things.
>>
>> with the quiet confidence that there cannot be a contradiction
>> regarding the truth of God and the truth of science.
>>
>> Second, this a priori starting point means that if the latter throws
>> up a well-established finding over hundreds of years, then theology
>> needs to rethink whether it has trespassed over its legitimate
>> boundaries if it finds itself contradicted.
>>
>> contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
>> especially its presuppositions and context.
>
> confidence in any theological claim?
Divine revelation, which you atheists reject.
Steven L.
There are philosophical, metaphysical, ethical, and moral truths that
are not derived from the scientific study of the natural world. All
attempts thus far to develop an objective moral code have been abject
failures.
That's the problem with you atheists. You pride yourselves on your
rationality. But in reality, you guide your own personal lives by
psychology, intuition, emotions, and instinct, just like the rest of us.
And what religion is, is an attempt to distill all that down into a
moral code for the masses.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
M_P
> M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:8375b004-c899-4035...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:57 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> >> M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:4757f37b-af2c-416a-9bfd-f219440db8
> > d...@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Feb 12, 1:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> so moses never parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin,jesusnever
> >> >> walked on water, and never rose from the dead.
>
> >> > Apples and oranges ... localized, temporary suspensions of natural
> >> > law are very different from the sweeping intervention that would
> >> > have been required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Since it's entirely plausible that He has greater willingness to do
> > the former than the latter,
>
> Why is that plausible? He's god, he can do whatever the hell he likes.
Ability and motivation are separate issues.
> > rejecting the latter in no way requires
> > rejecting the former.
>
> Only small suspensions of the known laws of physics, chemistry and biology
> allowed?
No, small suspensions preferred.
M_P
> M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:fe6cdd27-f88c-4ce5...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> > On Feb 12, 2:25 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 2:04 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Apples and oranges ... localized, temporary suspensions of natural
> >> > law are very different from the sweeping intervention that would
> >> > have been required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution.
>
> >> why? does god have the power to do one but not the other?
>
> > No, but it's entirely plausible that He has greater willingness to do
> > one than the other.
>
> Only if you atribute human thought processes to something that obviously
> isn't human [...]
Why wouldn't He at least sometimes think in ways comprehensible to
humans?
Steven L.
That's known as special pleading (and begging the question). You're
making unverifiable excuses for God to keep God from doing something
that is hard to reconcile.
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
that you don't consider yourself an atheist. Then you define religion as
an attempt to distil psychology, intuition, emotions, and instinct into
a moral code for the masses, which seems a rather cynical and atheistic
conception of religion.
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Camp
> On 12 Feb, 20:29, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 11:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 7:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > christianity than, say, ray martinez?
>
> > > > > > > Well, for one they give reasons for their belief that can be checked,
> > > > > > > by looking at the authority they cite and the arguments they form on
> > > > > > > the basis of these authorities.
>
> > > > > > in 6 days. its a catholic bible too. i dont see anywhere it saying
> > > > > > "dont take this literally." i also see a lot of other magical stories
> > > > > > in the bible that the catholic church *does* take literally. what are
> > > > > > the grounds again for deciding which magical stories to take literally
> > > > > > and which not to?
>
> > > > > "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about
> > > > > the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world,
> > > > > about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
> > > > > and relative positions, . . . and this knowledge he holds to
> > > > > as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
> > > > > disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
> > > > > Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
> > > > > talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all
> > > > > means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which
> > > > > people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it
> > > > > to scorn."
>
> > > > > In short easy words: when there is a scientific explanation
> > > > > that is at odds with an interpretation of the Bible, that
> > > > > interpretation (yours, in this case) is wrong.
>
> > > > walked on water, and never rose from the dead.
>
> > > > to concede these events.
>
> > > From last week's Times higher:
>
> > > Gavin D'Costa is professor in Catholic theology, University of Bristol
>
> > > Darwin was misunderstood by many Christians, so much so that the
> > > Anglican Church has issued an "apology" to mark Darwin's bicentenary
> > > and the anniversary of On the Origin of Species, rather like the Roman
> > > Catholic Church's apology to Galileo. So what is at stake? Three
> > > things.
>
> > > First, that Christians engage intelligently over scientific debate
> > > with the quiet confidence that there cannot be a contradiction
> > > regarding the truth of God and the truth of science.
>
> > > Second, this a priori starting point means that if the latter throws
> > > up a well-established finding over hundreds of years, then theology
> > > needs to rethink whether it has trespassed over its legitimate
> > > boundaries if it finds itself contradicted.
>
>
> > > Third, if theology is confident of its truth and there is still a
> > > contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
> > > especially its presuppositions and context.
>
> > paragraph. The "confidence" of theology is not, in any comparative
> > sense, equivalent with the "confidence" of science. The latter is all
> > about the kind of "rigorous scrutiny" he suggests, based as it is upon
> > empirical observation and hypothesis testing. Much as it gags me even
> > to appear to agree with snex, this bit sounds like someone who is very
> > conflicted as to whether theology should rethink anything.
>
> > > Darwin's followers have sometimes developed his theses into theories
> > > that are in direct opposition to theological claims and this debate
> > > remains unresolved.
>
> > This is simply wrong. If evolutionary biologists (can we dispense with
> > loaded terms like "Darwin's followers?") have developed theories that
> > are in opposition to theological claims then the debate is very much
> > resolved regarding empirical understanding of nature, something to
> > which theological claims are substantially irrelevant.
>
> > > So let's celebrate this pioneer, never be afraid of truth and continue
> > > this important discussion.
>
> > I completely agree, but I wonder if D'Costa really does.
>
> > RLC
>
> Well, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assumed
> he meant those applications of evolutionary theory that are either
> based on problematic analogies and/or sloppy thinking, such as certain
> form of "vulgar social Darwinism" where sometimes scientists
> "trespassed " into territory where they do not belong, in the sense of
> deriving "oughts" where at best they had very speculative "is"
You may be right that this is what he meant, and I want to be clear
that I think his view is, at worst, conflicted, so he's certainly
moved a lot further toward a rational approach to science than many
theists (not to mention some extreme atheists). He probably deserves
more slack than I gave him, and had he opined that "Darwin's followers
have sometimes developed his theses into theories that are in direct
opposition to [*logic and evidence as well as*] theological claims..."
I likely would have. I just thought that bit demonstrated that his
perspective is still lagging his reason somewhat.
> (I think there is a competition somewhere for the most ridiculous
> "arwinist " explanation of behavior my favourite was always; why can't
> woman read maps and why do man never ask for directions") .as soons as
> these are translated into "scientifically informed policy advice", i
> would grant the Church (and of course everybody with a set of ethical
> beliefs) to scrutinse it on its own terms
I don't care what anyone says, I'm still not asking for directions.
After watching Pride and Prejudice with my wife (and enjoying it no
less) I'm already close to losing my Man card.
RLC
snex
what makes it authoritative? "the vatican says so" is an invalid
appeal to authority.
snex
atheists dont reject divine revelation because we are atheists, we
reject it because it is notoriously unreliable and cannot stand up to
scientific scrutiny. but isnt your whole shtick claiming that religion
is compatible with science? if it is, why cant revelation withstand
scientific scrutiny?
just how do you think creationists are confident of creationism? thats
right, divine revelation! obviously the method is flawed.
snex
what testable model of god are you basing this claim on?
snex
no but creation as described in genesis (god's word, remember) would
be. why do you doubt that god did it the way he said he did it?
and if you can doubt god's word in one area, why is it to be taken
literally anywhere else? if god cannot be taken at his word, then
cherry-picking miracles you want to have happened is just dishonest.
snex
so have all non-objective attempts. and what does that have to do with
genesis? god could have given us an objective understanding of the
creation of the world *and then* moved on to a moral understanding.
in fact, thats exactly the way it is laid out already. genesis uses
objective terms. ie "it happened like this." then in leviticus it
moves on to moral codes, ie "you must do this."
>
> That's the problem with you atheists. You pride yourselves on your
> rationality. But in reality, you guide your own personal lives by
> psychology, intuition, emotions, and instinct, just like the rest of us.
> And what religion is, is an attempt to distill all that down into a
> moral code for the masses.
in other words, its an attempt by a few guys with a bunch of power to
impose their opinions about morality on everybody else, by LYING about
having the authority of an all-powerful universe creator backing them
up.
yeah, and we atheists are the problem...
M_P
That's known as a straw man. I make no "excuses" for God; I merely
note that contrary to snex's implication, believing that evolution
occurred in no way requires one to believe that "moses never parted
the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never walked on water, and
M_P
None. On what testable model of God are you basing your claim that
rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of the
evidence for evolution requires one to also conclude that "moses never
parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never walked on water,
and never rose from the dead"?
snex
either science matters or it doesnt. you cant say that science matters
when interpreting genesis but not when interpreting virgin birth
stories. as steven L noted, that is the special pleading fallacy.
M_P
No it isn't; I've drawn a distinction between those cases.
snex
drawing a distinction based on arbitrary criteria that have nothing to
do with the subject *is* the special pleading fallacy.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> snex wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 1:17 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Third, if theology is confident of its truth and there is still a
> >> contradiction, science must be subject to rigorous scrutiny,
> >> especially its presuppositions and context.
> > and right here is the problem. what possible source is there for
> > confidence in any theological claim?
> Divine revelation, which you atheists reject.
How does one identify divine revelation? How would someone starting
with no particular religion distinguish between divine revelation,
sincere and deeply held by erroneous belief, lies, hallucination,
long-standing tradition, etc.?
Given the number of distinct and clearly contradictory claims of divine
revelation offered by different religions -- and, for that matter, different
people who formally share a religion -- how does one decide which, if any
of these, are correct?
I understand, at least in principle, how to answer this kind of question
in science. I don't in religion.
Steve Carlip
macaddicted
> On Feb 12, 11:48 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> wrote:
> > snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 6:06 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > > wrote:
> > > > snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > funny, i went back and checked my bible. genesis still says god did it
> > > > > in 6 days. its a catholic bible too. i dont see anywhere it saying
> > > > > "dont take this literally." i also see a lot of other magical stories
> > > > > in the bible that the catholic church *does* take literally. what are
> > > > > the grounds again for deciding which magical stories to take literally
> > > > > and which not to?
> >
> > > > <http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm>
> >
> > > from your link:
> >
> > > "What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places
> > > itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern
> > > is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. Modern
> > > hermeneutics has made clear, as we have noted, the impossibility of
> > > interpreting a text without starting from a "pre-understanding" of one
> > > type or another."
> >
> > > sounds like creationism is back in.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > It's talking about hemeneutics and not exegesis.
>
> Read again... "What characterizes Catholic exegesis..."
Ooops.
>
> > The two are not the
> > same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> > hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> > (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> > original author intended to convey to the original audience.
> >
> > In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> > universe. Not how. Not when.
>
> yes. when indeed? even if we cant reliably say it happened 6000 years
> ago based on patriarch ages, the author of genesis clearly says it
> happened over a course of 6 days. people try to fudge on what the
> meaning of "day" is in the context, but the author made it clear
> already. he specified that there was evening and morning between each
> of these days. he clearly intended to convey 6 24-hour periods of
> time.
The Church does not read scripture perspicaciously, as happens in some
fundamentalist/evangelical groups.
>
> >
> > Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
> > message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> > Tradition in doing so.
>
> neither revelation nor tradition are reliable guides to *truth*. why
> isnt the primary interest of the catholic church the truth?
Depends on the truth. We've learned to leave science to the scientists.
>
> >
> > >if god used evolution, why does
> > > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
> >
> > An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> > originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> > particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> > comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> > message being given.
>
> why on earth would you think that human beings who were, for all
> intents and purposes, genetically identical to modern 21st century
> humans could not understand "a whole lot of years?" or what about "you
> came from monkeys?" its not exactly correct, but its infinitely more
> accurate than what genesis says. as it stands, most people *still*
> think that evolution equates to "you came from monkeys," so had the
> bible originally said this, we wouldnt have a problem, now would we?
Different sources, different times. Genesis 2 and the other creation
myths of the Bible are more indeterminate. It's a mistake to focus
solely on Genesis, and more so on Gensis 1.
>
> >
> > You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
> > concepts evolution of the universe and life on earth from within the
> > cosmogony and geo-physical understanding that existed in the Ancient
> > Near East around 3-3,500 years ago.
>
> "see the sun? one of those (all those little stars you see are the
> same types of things as it, btw) blew up and made the earth. then some
> slime formed, and turned into fish. then the fish turned into frogs,
> which turned into lizards, which turned into mice, which turned into
> monkeys, which turned into humans. the end"
And you would already be outside the ANE's cosmology after your second
sentence.
>
> it may not be strictly accurate, but again, had *that* been written in
> genesis, you wouldnt see christians going around declaring that its
> just metaphorical.
Allegorical.
> youd be using it as proof that the authors of
> genesis had divine knowledge.
Or that the authors were smart ahead of their time.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
Iain
wrote:
> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 4:06 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > From The Times
> > > February 11, 2009
> > > Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> > > Richard Owen in Rome
>
> > > The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when
> > > he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>
>
> > Does that mean they can start work on 20th century ideas now?
>
> > --Iain
>
> Wow. If you are going to be sarcastic you need to catch a clue. See
> "Humani Generis" from Pius XII. Skip to the end, you probably don't care
> anymore than I do about modernism.
The sarcasm is directed at the presumptuous glibness with which a
church talks, like a discoverer, about very old, very well established
scientific ideas, that have been considered compatible with reality
for 100+ years by everyone who studies the evidence in earnest and
without bias. It just highlights the comical redundancy of the church
in matters of science, while pretending to stay relevant.
--Iain
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snex wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 1:17 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 7:01 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com wrote:
> >>>> On 12 feb, 19:08, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From The Times
> >>>>>>>> February 11, 2009
> >>>>>>>> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
> >>>>>>>> Richard Owen in Rome
> >>>>>>>> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track
> >>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>> he claimed that Man descended from apes.
> >>>>>>>> A leading official declared yesterday that Darwinąs theory of
> >>>>>>>> evolution
> >>>>>>>> was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
> >>>>>>>> Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. łIn fact, what we mean by evolution
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> the world as created by God,˛ said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi,
> >>>>>>>> head of
> >>>>>>>> the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final
> >>>>>>>> blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to
> >>>>>>>> endorse
> >>>>>>>> the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a łhigher
> >>>>>>>> power˛ for the complexities of life.
> >>>>>>>> Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th
> >>>>>>>> anniversary of Darwinąs On the Origin of Species said that at first
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as
> >>>>>>>> łpoor theology and poor science˛. Intelligent Design would be
> >>>>>>>> discussed
> >>>>>>>> at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian
> >>>>>>>> University,
> >>>>>>>> but merely as a łcultural phenomenon˛, rather than a scientific or
> >>>>>>>> theological issue, organisers said.
> >>>>>>>> The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and
> >>>>>>>> science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Popeąs reference to an łintelligent project˛ as proof that he
> >>>>>>>> favoured
> >>>>>>>> their views.
> >>>>>>>> Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his
> >>>>>>>> theory
> >>>>>>>> appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis,
> >>>>>>>> Archbishop
> >>>>>>>> Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian
> >>>>>>>> view
> >>>>>>>> of Creation were complementary.
> >>>>>>>> Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian
> >>>>>>>> University, said that no scholar could łremain indifferent˛ to the
> >>>>>>>> 200th
> >>>>>>>> anniversary of Darwinąs birth tomorrow. There was, however, łno
> >>>>>>>> question
> >>>>>>>> of celebrating˛ it.
> >>>>>>>> The Vatican would łtake the measure of an event, which has left its
> >>>>>>>> mark
> >>>>>>>> for ever on the history of science and has influenced the way we
> >>>>>>>> understand our humanity˛. The łtime has come for a rigorous and
> >>>>>>>> objective valuation˛ of Darwin by the Church, he said.
> >>>>>>>> Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin above all
> >>>>>>>> Creationists had mistakenly claimed that his theories were
> >>>>>>>> łtotally
> >>>>>>>> incompatible with a religious vision of reality˛, as did proponents
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> Intelligent Design.
> >>>>>>>> Darwinąs theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman
> >>>>>>>> Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation had
> >>>>>>>> begun
> >>>>>>>> as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution as a valid
> >>>>>>>> scientific approach to the development of humans. In 1996 John Paul
> >>>>>>>> II
> >>>>>>>> said that it was łmore than a hypothesis˛.
> >>>>>>>> Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the
> >>>>>>>> Pontifical
> >>>>>>>> Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been
> >>>>>>>> anticipated by
> >>>>>>>> St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had łnever heard
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish˛ and that
> >>>>>>>> forms
> >>>>>>>> of life had been transformed łslowly over time˛. Aquinas had made
> >>>>>>>> similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.
> >>>>>>>> He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> the mysteries of genetic codes and łwhether the diversification of
> >>>>>>>> life
> >>>>>>>> forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species˛.
> >>>>>>>> As
> >>>>>>>> for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our
> >>>>>>>> łgenetic
> >>>>>>>> inheritance˛ with apes, the remaining 3 per cent łis what makes us
> >>>>>>>> unique˛, including religion.
> >>>>>>>> łI maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian
> >>>>>>>> theology,˛ Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.
> >>>>>>>> Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among
> >>>>>>>> Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught in
> >>>>>>>> state
> >>>>>>>> schools.
> >>>>>>>> The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> a page on its website paying tribute to his łforgotten˛ work in his
> >>>>>>>> local parish, to illustrate how science and Church need not be at
> >>>>>>>> odds.
> >>>>>>>> Several pages celebrate Darwinąs łsignificant scientific progress˛
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> mark his bicentenary and also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> Species.
> >>>>>>>> The Church wants to correct the impression that Darwinąs
Myself I worship Aphrodite,
Even though she wears no nighty
And can be extremely flighty
But she's good enough for me.
We all worship Ganesha,
Highly honoured by his ma,
Bringer of sweet delight
And steady backup in a fight.
And He's good enough for me.
Let us worship with the Druids
Running naked through the woulds
Drinking strange fermented fluids.
And it's good enough for me.
Dancing
M_P
"Special pleading [...] involves someone attempting to cite something
as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without
justifying the exemption." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Special_pleading) I have stated the reason for the exemption, so I am
not engaged in special pleading.
snex
stating a reason is not justifying the exemption if the reason has no
logical connection to the case you are trying to exempt. all youve
done is say that an omnipotent entity whose motives are inscrutable
prefers to violate the natural laws of physics in ways that are only
"one-time" as opposed to violating them in such a way that makes the
laws themselves completely wrong.
you have no justification for this assertion, and furthermore you
*cannot* have a justification for such an assertion without claiming
and demonstrating that god's motives *are* knowable and that *you*
know them.
M_P
> "one-time" [...]
Straw man; I've said only "it's entirely plausible" ... which is all I
need to say to counter your claim that rejecting a literal
interpretation of Genesis in the face of the evidence for evolution
*requires* one to also conclude that "moses never parted the red sea,
mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never walked on water, and never rose from
the dead."
snex
entirely plausible based on what? what makes it any more plausible
than the opposite being true, ie that god prefers to completely
deceive us on matters of natural laws like thermodynamics or evolution
but is totally honest when it comes to not performing one-off miracles?
M_P
It's consistent with the scarcity if not nonexistence of modern-day
miracles; public displays of His existence don't seem to be His style.
snex
the scarcity if not nonexistence of modern-day miracles actually
supports my contention much more than yours. your contention was that
god prefers one-off violations of natural law over vast deceptions
over what we think initial conditions were like given the laws we
observe.
if your contention were the case, we should *expect* to see miracles
every now and then, since you claim god prefers them. after all, did
moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
your claim?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<994e81bf-aca1-4d25...@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
> It's consistent with the scarcity if not nonexistence of modern-day
> miracles; public displays of His existence don't seem to be His style.
Come on, now. Anyone can think of a few modern-day miracles. John Revolting
still having an acting career, for example. Or the fact that the offices of
the Governor of Illinois are _not_ (yet) located inside the Statesville
Correctional Center, that's just _got_ to be a miracle.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
M_P
Another straw man. My claim is that it's plausible that God prefers
them relative to vast deceptions.
> after all, did
> moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
> your claim?
Not according to my claim ... but my personal belief is that they did
witness those things.
snex
how is it a strawman to bring up evidence against your claim? do you
even know what you are talking about, or are you just spewing
bullshit?
first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions. secondly,
the complete lack of miracles is *evidence against* your claim, not a
straw man of it.
>
> > after all, did
> > moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
> > your claim?
>
> Not according to my claim ... but my personal belief is that they did
> witness those things.
then why shouldnt we witness them today? the lack of these things is
evidence against your claim that god prefers them over vast
deceptions.
why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires, and then trying
to use that as evidence that god behaves you believe he does. it is
viciously circular logic that relies on special pleading, and no
amount of bald assertions on your part about what you think it is
plausible that god prefers will change that.
M_P
The straw man is your misrepresentation of my position.
> first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
> plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions.
I've already stated my justification.
> secondly,
> the complete lack of miracles is *evidence against* your claim,
No, only against your straw-man misrepresentation of my position.
> not a
> straw man of it.
>
> > > after all, did
> > > moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
> > > your claim?
>
> > Not according to my claim ... but my personal belief is that they did
> > witness those things.
>
> then why shouldnt we witness them today? the lack of these things is
> evidence against your claim that god prefers them over vast
> deceptions.
No it's not.
> why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
> beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
> pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires,
Yet another straw man ... I have made no claim to such knowledge.
snex
i never misrepresented your position. i listed evidence against it.
>
> > first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
> > plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions.
>
> I've already stated my justification.
no, actually you havent. you just asserted that its plausible, for no
reason whatsoever.
>
> > secondly,
> > the complete lack of miracles is *evidence against* your claim,
>
> No, only against your straw-man misrepresentation of my position.
no, it is evidence against your claim. your claim is that god prefers
small miracles over vast deceptions. so *where are they?* show me the
small miracles.
>
> > not a
> > straw man of it.
>
> > > > after all, did
> > > > moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
> > > > your claim?
>
> > > Not according to my claim ... but my personal belief is that they did
> > > witness those things.
>
> > then why shouldnt we witness them today? the lack of these things is
> > evidence against your claim that god prefers them over vast
> > deceptions.
>
> No it's not.
yes, it is. if the number of small miracles equals the number of vast
deceptions, then god prefers neither one over the other. for god to
prefer one to the other, it would have to be more frequent. so far, i
see 0 of each.
>
> > why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
> > beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
> > pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires,
>
> Yet another straw man ... I have made no claim to such knowledge.
yes, you have. you pretend you know how any gods would operate, if
they existed.
M_P
You keep dropping the "it's plausible that" part.
> i listed evidence against it.
>
> > > first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
> > > plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions.
>
> > I've already stated my justification.
>
> no, actually you havent. you just asserted that its plausible, for no
> reason whatsoever.
I'll state it a second time: "It's consistent with the scarcity if not
nonexistence of modern-day miracles; public displays of His existence
don't seem to be His style."
> > > secondly,
> > > the complete lack of miracles is *evidence against* your claim,
>
> > No, only against your straw-man misrepresentation of my position.
>
> no, it is evidence against your claim. your claim is that god prefers
> small miracles over vast deceptions.
Still wrong.
> so *where are they?* show me the
> small miracles.
Do you prefer losing a finger to losing an arm? Show me your missing
finger.
> > > not a
> > > straw man of it.
>
> > > > > after all, did
> > > > > moses' and jesus' followers not witness these things, according to
> > > > > your claim?
>
> > > > Not according to my claim ... but my personal belief is that they did
> > > > witness those things.
>
> > > then why shouldnt we witness them today? the lack of these things is
> > > evidence against your claim that god prefers them over vast
> > > deceptions.
>
> > No it's not.
>
> yes, it is. if the number of small miracles equals the number of vast
> deceptions, then god prefers neither one over the other.
Wrong. I have zero missing fingers and zero missing arms but I prefer
the former.
> for god to
> prefer one to the other, it would have to be more frequent. so far, i
> see 0 of each.
>
> > > why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
> > > beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
> > > pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires,
>
> > Yet another straw man ... I have made no claim to such knowledge.
>
> yes, you have. you pretend you know how any gods would operate, if
> they existed.
Wrong.
snex
no, i dont. im telling you that you have no justification whatsoever
that its plausible. asserting that its plausible does not make it so.
>
> > i listed evidence against it.
>
> > > > first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
> > > > plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions.
>
> > > I've already stated my justification.
>
> > no, actually you havent. you just asserted that its plausible, for no
> > reason whatsoever.
>
> I'll state it a second time: "It's consistent with the scarcity if not
> nonexistence of modern-day miracles; public displays of His existence
> don't seem to be His style."
it is not at all consistent with that. if he PREFERS such miracles,
then we should be seeing them from time to time.
that is a false analogy. missing limbs is not a choice you get to
make. causing miracles or deceptions is a choice god gets to make. god
can either 1) perform vast deceptions, 2) perform small miracles, 3)
do both, or 4) do neither. if your claim is that he prefers 2 over 1,
then we should see more instances of 2 than 1. if we dont see this,
then what possible way can you determine that he prefers 2 over 1? you
can only be talking out of your ass.
>
> > for god to
> > prefer one to the other, it would have to be more frequent. so far, i
> > see 0 of each.
>
> > > > why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
> > > > beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
> > > > pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires,
>
> > > Yet another straw man ... I have made no claim to such knowledge.
>
> > yes, you have. you pretend you know how any gods would operate, if
> > they existed.
>
> Wrong.
that is exactly what you are doing. you are pretending you know what
it is plausible that god prefers, despite having no justification for
such a claim. its amazing how arrogant you theists are.
Vend
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If the Bible is wrong, at least at the literal level, on extraordiary
claims we can verify, how can we trust it on extraordinary claims we
can't verify?
Vend
> >>> On Feb 12, 6:06 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> funny, i went back and checked my bible. genesis still says god did it
> >>>>> in 6 days. its a catholic bible too. i dont see anywhere it saying
> >>>>> "dont take this literally." i also see a lot of other magical stories
> >>>>> in the bible that the catholic church *does* take literally. what are
> >>>>> the grounds again for deciding which magical stories to take literally
> >>>>> and which not to?
> >>> from your link:
> >>> "What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places
> >>> itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern
> >>> is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. Modern
> >>> hermeneutics has made clear, as we have noted, the impossibility of
> >>> interpreting a text without starting from a "pre-understanding" of one
> >>> type or another."
> >>> sounds like creationism is back in.
> >> No.
>
> >> It's talking about hemeneutics and not exegesis.
>
> > Read again... "What characterizes Catholic exegesis..."
>
> >> same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> >> hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> >> (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> >> original author intended to convey to the original audience.
>
> >> In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> >> universe. Not how. Not when.
>
> > yes. when indeed? even if we cant reliably say it happened 6000 years
> > ago based on patriarch ages, the author of genesis clearly says it
> > happened over a course of 6 days. people try to fudge on what the
> > meaning of "day" is in the context, but the author made it clear
> > already. he specified that there was evening and morning between each
> > of these days. he clearly intended to convey 6 24-hour periods of
> > time.
>
> >> message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> >> Tradition in doing so.
>
> > neither revelation nor tradition are reliable guides to *truth*. why
> > isnt the primary interest of the catholic church the truth?
>
> are not derived from the scientific study of the natural world. All
> attempts thus far to develop an objective moral code have been abject
> failures.
>
> rationality. But in reality, you guide your own personal lives by
> psychology, intuition, emotions, and instinct, just like the rest of us.
> And what religion is, is an attempt to distill all that down into a
> moral code for the masses.
You mean, like an opium of the people?
Vend
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 6:06 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > wrote:
> > > snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 12:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > February 11, 2009
> > > > > > > Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> > > > > > > Richard Owen in Rome
>
> > > > > > > The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right
> > > > > > > track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>
> > > > > > > A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin's theory of
> > > > > > > evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be
> > > > > > > traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. "In fact, what we
> > > > > > > mean by evolution is the world as created by God," said
> > > > > > > Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for
> > > > > > > that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory
> > > > > > > for the complexities of life.
>
> > > > > > > Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the
> > > > > > > at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design
> > > > > > > Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at
> > > > > > > phenomenon", rather than a scientific or theological issue,
> > > > > > > organisers said.
>
> > > > > > > The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith
> > > > > > > and science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design
> > > > > > > proof that he favoured their views.
>
> > > > > > > Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his
> > > > > > > theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in
> > > > > > > Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological
> > > > > > > evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.
>
> > > > > > > Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian
> > > > > > > the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth tomorrow. There was,
> > > > > > > however, "no question of celebrating" it.
>
> > > > > > > The Vatican would "take the measure of an event, which has left
> > > > > > > its mark for ever on the history of science and has influenced
> > > > > > > rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church, he
> > > > > > > said.
>
> > > > > > > Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin – above
> > > > > > > all Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were
> > > > > > > did proponents of Intelligent Design.
>
> > > > > > > Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation
> > > > > > > had begun as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution
> > > > > > > as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. In
>
> > > > > > > Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the
> > > > > > > Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had
> > > > > > > been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century
> > > > > > > big fish eat smaller fish" and that forms of life had been
> > > > > > > observations in the Middle Ages, he added.
>
> > > > > > > He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists
> > > > > > > diversification of life forms is the result of competition or
> > > > > > > cooperation between species". As for the origins of Man,
> > > > > > > apes, the remaining 3 per cent "is what makes us unique",
> > > > > > > including religion.
>
> > > > > > > "I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian
> > > > > > > theology," Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.
>
> > > > > > > Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among
> > > > > > > Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught
> > > > > > > in state schools.
>
> > > > > > > The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the
> > > > > > > fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his
> > > > > > > and Church need not be at odds. Several pages celebrate Darwin's
> > > > > > > "significant scientific progress" to mark his bicentenary and
> > > > > > > also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species.
>
> > > > > > > relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican
> > > > > > > Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says
> > > > > > > that although he lost his faith, he did not become antiChurch or
> > > > > > > antireligious.
>
> > > > > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
>
> > > > > > > [ St. Augustine also had some good advice for today's
> > > > > > > creationists:
>
> > > > > > > "It very often happens that there is some question as to the
> > > > > > > respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge
> > > > > > > derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is
> > > > > > > very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be
> > > > > > > carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as
> > > > > > > being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by
> > > > > > > an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever
> > > > > > > perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can
> > > > > > > hardly restrain himself from laughing....
>
> > > > > > > "It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent
> > > > > > > Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits
> > > > > > > who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion,
> > > > > > > and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men
> > > > > > > who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to
> > > > > > > defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so
> > > > > > > manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a
> > > > > > > proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them
> > > > > > > from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they
> > > > > > > quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they
> > > > > > > quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."
> > > > > > > ]
>
> > > > > > > NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
> > > > > > christianity than, say, ray martinez?
>
> > > > > Well, for one they give reasons for their belief that can be checked,
> > > > > by looking at the authority they cite and the arguments they form on
> > > > > the basis of these authorities.
>
> > > > in 6 days. its a catholic bible too. i dont see anywhere it saying
> > > > "dont take this literally." i also see a lot of other magical stories
> > > > in the bible that the catholic church *does* take literally. what are
> > > > the grounds again for deciding which magical stories to take literally
> > > > and which not to?
>
> > > <http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm>
>
> > from your link:
>
> > "What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places
> > itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern
> > is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. Modern
> > hermeneutics has made clear, as we have noted, the impossibility of
> > interpreting a text without starting from a "pre-understanding" of one
> > type or another."
>
> > sounds like creationism is back in.
>
> No.
>
> same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> original author intended to convey to the original audience.
>
> In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> universe. Not how. Not when.
If that was true then it would just say "God created the universe".
> Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
> message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> Tradition in doing so.
It's actually based on authority.
> >if god used evolution, why does
> > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
>
> An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> message being given.
And making up an incorrect story is better?
> You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
> concepts evolution of the universe and life ...
If God didn't want to disclose modern scientific knowledge to ancient
goat hearders why did he make up a misleading story?
He could just have said:
"A long long time ago, I made the universe." (creation)
"Then I humans started to behave in ways that I don't like" (fall)
etc...
M_P
Yes you do: "you claim god prefers them".
> im telling you that you have no justification whatsoever
> that its plausible. asserting that its plausible does not make it so.
See below.
> > > i listed evidence against it.
>
> > > > > first of all, you have *absolutely no* justification to claim that its
> > > > > plausible that god prefers them relative to vast deceptions.
>
> > > > I've already stated my justification.
>
> > > no, actually you havent. you just asserted that its plausible, for no
> > > reason whatsoever.
>
> > I'll state it a second time: "It's consistent with the scarcity if not
> > nonexistence of modern-day miracles; public displays of His existence
> > don't seem to be His style."
>
> it is not at all consistent with that. if he PREFERS such miracles,
> then we should be seeing them from time to time.
That doesn't follow, as I argue below.
> make. [...]
Says who?
> > > > > why dont you quit wasting everybody's time with your "personal
> > > > > beliefs" and simply stick to what we know? all you are doing here is
> > > > > pretending that you have knowledge of god's desires,
>
> > > > Yet another straw man ... I have made no claim to such knowledge.
>
> > > yes, you have. you pretend you know how any gods would operate, if
> > > they existed.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> that is exactly what you are doing. you are pretending you know what
> it is plausible that god prefers,
Which is not the same as "pretending I know how any gods would
operate."
M_P
Trust what you will ... I'm not required to conclude that "moses never
parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never walked on water,
and never rose from the dead."
Vend
Ok. How do you support your claims?
M_P
What is it you think I've claimed?
snex
> On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > that is exactly what you are doing. you are pretending you know what
> > it is plausible that god prefers,
>
> Which is not the same as "pretending I know how any gods would
> operate."
are you going to stop pretending to have knowledge that you do not
have and admit that your claim was silly or do we have to continue
this pointless thread of you going in circles over and over again?
snex
you just admitted to claiming that these events were real historical
events, no different than lincoln delivering the gettysburg address.
either they happened or they didnt. if you want to claim they did,
then pony up the evidence. otherwise, take your fairytale beliefs back
where they belong - to the daycare center.
macaddicted
Not when viewed against the cosmogony of contemperary ANE cultures.
>
> > Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
> > message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> > Tradition in doing so.
>
> It's actually based on authority.
No. Tradition plays a part, but is not the totality of hermeneutics.
>
> > >if god used evolution, why does
> > > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
> >
> > An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> > originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> > particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> > comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> > message being given.
>
> And making up an incorrect story is better?
Only if you read it perspicaciously, which we do not.
>
> > You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
> > concepts evolution of the universe and life ...
>
> If God didn't want to disclose modern scientific knowledge to ancient
> goat hearders why did he make up a misleading story?
See above.
>
> He could just have said:
> "A long long time ago, I made the universe." (creation)
See Job.
> "Then I humans started to behave in ways that I don't like" (fall)
> etc...
Which is why you can't read the "pre-history" section perspicaciously.
snex
wrote:
> Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > On 13 Feb, 06:48, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
> > > snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 6:06 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > It's talking about hemeneutics and not exegesis. The two are not the
> > > same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> > > hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> > > (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> > > original author intended to convey to the original audience.
>
> > > In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> > > universe. Not how. Not when.
>
> > If that was true then it would just say "God created the universe".
>
> Not when viewed against the cosmogony of contemperary ANE cultures.
why is that at all relevant? if it was really god speaking, then the
cosmogony of other cultures is simply irrelevant. what god says, is.
whos going to doubt a booming voice from the sky?
on the other hand, it makes perfect sense for them to get the details
wrong if its not the word of god at all, but just a record of what
some ancients believed.
> > > >if god used evolution, why does
> > > > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > > > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
>
> > > An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> > > originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> > > particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> > > comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> > > message being given.
>
> > And making up an incorrect story is better?
>
> Only if you read it perspicaciously, which we do not.
i dont think that word means what you think it means...
> > He could just have said:
> > "A long long time ago, I made the universe." (creation)
>
> See Job.
that is not an answer. if genesis is indeed about the fact that god
created, rather than how or when, then god should have just said "i
created" rather than telling us details about how and when. claiming
genesis is not how and when when it goes to great depths to tell us
exactly how and when (it even lists pages and pages of genealogies
specifying exactly how old people were when they died!) is
disingenuous.
>
> > "Then I humans started to behave in ways that I don't like" (fall)
> > etc...
>
> Which is why you can't read the "pre-history" section perspicaciously.
in other words, you are embarrassed by the stupid claims by genesis,
so you make up excuses for them.
what makes me wonder is why you are not embarrassed by the stupid
claims made by the gospels as well. virgin births and bodily
resurrections are clearly not real events.
gregwrld
"Trust but verify."
-Ronald Reagan
Even a clock is right twice
a day...
gregwrld
macaddicted
> On Feb 20, 5:54 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> wrote:
> > Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > > On 13 Feb, 06:48, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
> > > > snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 12, 6:06 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > It's talking about hemeneutics and not exegesis. The two are not the
> > > > same. The most common form of "pre-understanding" of modern Catholic
> > > > hemeneutics is based on the exegetic historical-critical method, which
> > > > (somewhat simplisticly put) starts from trying to understand what the
> > > > original author intended to convey to the original audience.
> >
> > > > In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> > > > universe. Not how. Not when.
> >
> > > If that was true then it would just say "God created the universe".
> >
> > Not when viewed against the cosmogony of contemperary ANE cultures.
>
> why is that at all relevant? if it was really god speaking, then the
> cosmogony of other cultures is simply irrelevant. what god says, is.
> whos going to doubt a booming voice from the sky?
In the context of this discussion it is entirely relevant.
>
> on the other hand, it makes perfect sense for them to get the details
> wrong if its not the word of god at all, but just a record of what
> some ancients believed.
>
> > > > >if god used evolution, why does
> > > > > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > > > > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
> >
> > > > An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> > > > originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> > > > particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> > > > comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> > > > message being given.
> >
> > > And making up an incorrect story is better?
> >
> > Only if you read it perspicaciously, which we do not.
>
> i dont think that word means what you think it means...
In theology it means "to take the immediate meaning of a written
expression." It is something that some fundamentalist sects do when they
take the immediate meaning of works, such as Gen. 1-3, as being
"literally true."
It is not the same as the literal sense, which brings us back to
exegesis.
>
> > > He could just have said:
> > > "A long long time ago, I made the universe." (creation)
> >
> > See Job.
>
> that is not an answer. if genesis is indeed about the fact that god
> created, rather than how or when, then god should have just said "i
> created" rather than telling us details about how and when. claiming
> genesis is not how and when when it goes to great depths to tell us
> exactly how and when (it even lists pages and pages of genealogies
> specifying exactly how old people were when they died!) is
> disingenuous.
Again, look at the creation myths of the contemperary ANE civilizations.
The purpose is to tell the listener (remember that these texts were most
often heard, not read, by their ultimate recipients) that the creation
of the world was not some accident but had purpose and had a singular,
not multiple source. (You can argue the latter, as the Arians did.)
>
> >
> > > "Then I humans started to behave in ways that I don't like" (fall)
> > > etc...
> >
> > Which is why you can't read the "pre-history" section perspicaciously.
>
> in other words, you are embarrassed by the stupid claims by genesis,
> so you make up excuses for them.
No, we understand the reason for their presentation. Remember, I'm Roman
Catholic, not a fundamentalist. There is a reason I generally consult
several (as many as six in one case, my "working" bible has four)
translations while I am working on a biblical interpretation (that and I
can't read koinine greek or ancient hebrew). There is a reason I consult
texts on problematic translated words. I'm not just taking what is in
the RSV and putting my spin on it.
The historical-critical method we've been discussing is but one of many
used in interpretting scripture, but it is the one most people
understand implicitly and is generally the best and easiest to use in a
practical setting (teaching, homily, etc.). But form criticism gives us
the JEPD theory of the pentateuch. Source criticsm is why there is a KJV
and an NKJV. It goes on.
>
> what makes me wonder is why you are not embarrassed by the stupid
> claims made by the gospels as well. virgin births and bodily
> resurrections are clearly not real events.
Which is where "miracle" comes in. ;-)
Seriously, I'm not as irrational as you seem to think, but clearly am
not as rational as you would like. Fides quaerens intellectum, faith
seeking understanding of itself, is what I do as a theologian, and what
I believe as a Catholic.
John S. Wilkins
^^^^^^^ koine - the final vowel is a long eta.
How does one do theology these days and not learn basic Greek? In my
day... mutter mutter mutter young people hell in a hand basket....
> texts on problematic translated words. I'm not just taking what is in
> the RSV and putting my spin on it.
>
> The historical-critical method we've been discussing is but one of many
> used in interpretting scripture, but it is the one most people
> understand implicitly and is generally the best and easiest to use in a
> practical setting (teaching, homily, etc.). But form criticism gives us
> the JEPD theory of the pentateuch. Source criticsm is why there is a KJV
> and an NKJV. It goes on.
>
> >
> > what makes me wonder is why you are not embarrassed by the stupid
> > claims made by the gospels as well. virgin births and bodily
> > resurrections are clearly not real events.
>
> Which is where "miracle" comes in. ;-)
>
> Seriously, I'm not as irrational as you seem to think, but clearly am
> not as rational as you would like. Fides quaerens intellectum, faith
> seeking understanding of itself, is what I do as a theologian, and what
> I believe as a Catholic.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Kent Paul Dolan
> From The Times
> February 11, 2009
> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
> Richard Owen in Rome
> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was
> on the right track when he claimed that Man
> descended from apes.
> A leading official declared yesterday that
> Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with
> Christian faith, and could even be traced to St
> Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. "In fact, what we
> mean by evolution is the world as created by God,"
> said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the
> Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also
> dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope
> Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the
> theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates
> credit a "higher power" for the complexities of
> life.
It is a bit silly that when the only Christian sect
to which all other sects must look for central
authority (as it has the only believable claim for
legitimacy among so many contenders, "on this
rock"), even when the other sects violently dislike
that sect, makes an official pronouncement about
what "Christianity believes", that evolution and
Christianity fit like hand in glove, it _still_
won't make a bit of difference to the clueless
evolution deniers, who are, each and severally,
churches and religious sects unto themselves,
apostates individually and collectively, heresies
raging like lunatics and foaming like the crashing
seas snapping that flimsy Ark in twain.
Oh, well, whatever keeps creationists entertained
and off the streets, where the noises in their heads
would otherwise scare the horses...
xanthian.
[M]adman
> From The Times
> February 11, 2009
> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> Richard Owen in Rome
>
> The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track
> when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
And there was a time when the church thought ET existed too. But like all
lies, this one will be short lived as well.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8766368/What-if-ET-Phones-Our-Home-Implications-for-Christian-Thought
wf3h
> Steven L. wrote:
> > From The Times
> > February 11, 2009
> > Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
>
> > Richard Owen in Rome
>
> > The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track
> > when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
>
> []
>
> And there was a time when the church thought ET existed too. But like all
> lies, this one will be short lived as well.
>
and there was a time they thought galileo was wrong.
how's that coming along?
VoiceOfReason
Obviously you didn't read your own source. Extraterrestrial life most
likely does exist. When evidence for it is discovered, Christians may
want to consider the implications to their theology.
Not to worry though -- creationists will most likely deny the
evidence, so you won't have to strain yourself by thinking about it.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> How does one do theology these days and not learn basic Greek? In my
> day... mutter mutter mutter young people hell in a hand basket....
Declare the King James Version the authentic version, simple and keeps
the wippersnapers with Ph D's in theology over ruling the church elders.
If you want to learn Greek, learn Attic Greek or modern Greek in which
literature worth reading is written.
Vend
<snip>
> > > In the case of Genesis 1-3 the purpose is to convey that God created the
> > > universe. Not how. Not when.
>
> > If that was true then it would just say "God created the universe".
>
> Not when viewed against the cosmogony of contemperary ANE cultures.
Why not?
> > > Roman Catholic hemeneutics is based on trying to bring that ancient
> > > message usefully into today's world, relying on both Revelation and
> > > Tradition in doing so.
>
> > It's actually based on authority.
>
> No. Tradition plays a part, but is not the totality of hermeneutics.
Tradition is different from authority.
Some Popes have contraddicted their predecessors.
> > > >if god used evolution, why does
> > > > the revelation attested by the bible say otherwise? couldnt revelation
> > > > have said "it happened over billions of years through natural means?"
>
> > > An important element to understand is that revelation is intended
> > > originally for a particular audience at a particular time in a
> > > particular place. Trying to put forward information that beyond the
> > > comprehension of that audience would have lead to confusion over the
> > > message being given.
>
> > And making up an incorrect story is better?
>
> Only if you read it perspicaciously, which we do not.
How do you know that story must not be read perspicaciously?
How did the original audience know?
> > > You could try, as an exercise, giving an explanation of the modern
> > > concepts evolution of the universe and life ...
>
> > If God didn't want to disclose modern scientific knowledge to ancient
> > goat hearders why did he make up a misleading story?
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> > He could just have said:
> > "A long long time ago, I made the universe." (creation)
>
> See Job.
Job?
> > "Then I humans started to behave in ways that I don't like" (fall)
> > etc...
>
> Which is why you can't read the "pre-history" section perspicaciously.
Which parts can be read perspicaciously, and how do you recognize
them?
Walter Bushell
<efe1ad92-d426-43e8...@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Trust what you will ... I'm not required to conclude that "moses never
> parted the red sea, mary wasnt a virgin, jesus never walked on water,
> and never rose from the dead."
But you have to admit the rational grounds for believing any of those
are shaky at best. Moses probably parted his hair though, but not on the
Sabbath or he would have had to stone himself.
Walter Bushell
<a9153295-564a-441a...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
While the upper classes lift their wallets.