Genesis: Literal?

[Irenaeus]

nyj,

Well said. This is how I reconciled the problem in my own mind.

Especially as I mention the Fathers in the East, who, in asking themselves, "What is the image of God," defined it as threefold, being Free will, Immortality, and Reason. If then, the Image of God (a soul proper), is given only to Homo sapiens, as some propose, then it is not adverse to the deposit of faith to say that only these were given perfect immortality.

In addition, if you subscribe to the idea of apokatastasis (apart from its soteriological implications, which have been infallibly condemned), then one may believe that all creation was subject to decay since the pre temporal-creation fall of the Angels, which even Augustine mentions in his theological opinion as representing the "first day", being the separation between the light and darkness in the incorporeal universe. One could argue that ever since then, creation has been groaning until the final renewal, the Resurrection of the Dead, when God shall be "all in all."

 

[marciadietrich]

Given a minimalistic adherence to doctrines to reconcile evolution and faith, I was wondering if we could say that the material and vegetive aspects of the human soul evolved but not the spiritual aspects. So even though it isn't allowed to believe the human soul evolved we can say that only the parts of the soul which determine basic form and function did evolve (our upright posture, ability to walk on two legs, even base intelligence but not intellectual useable power and a sort of will to make basic decisions but not free will in moral choices) but that our likeness to God (if we make that purely spriritual) did not evolve.

Could the lower parts of the soul evolve since they are the things that simply animate and give the body form?

 

[Michelina]

Given a minimalistic adherence to doctrines to reconcile evolution and faith, I was wondering if we could say that the material and vegetive aspects of the human soul evolved but not the spiritual aspects. So even though it isn't allowed to believe the human soul evolved we can say that only the parts of the soul which determine basic form and function did evolve (our upright posture, ability to walk on two legs, even base intelligence but not intellectual useable power and a sort of will to make basic decisions but not free will in moral choices) but that our likeness to God (if we make that purely spriritual) did not evolve.

Could the lower parts of the soul evolve since they are the things that simply animate and give the body form?

Absolutely.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

The Bible says absolutely nothing about the death of any living creature other than man.

Actually, it does, in my humble, and still trying to learn, opinion...

"For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." - Romans 8:22

"How long will the land lie parched and the grass in every field be withered? Because those who live in it are wicked, the animals and birds have perished." - Jeremiah 12:4

Animals and humans (nephesh) did not die before the Fall, so the slow process of evolution does not fit with the Biblical record. Creation is described as being "very good" and conscious creatures do not suffer and die in a "very good" creation.

Note that plants and other non-conscious organisms such as microorganisms are not what the Bible called "nephesh," in other words, they don't have souls.

 

[marciadietrich]

Absolutely.

I hadn't gotten the impression that was possible before, but most people didn't seem to address the spiritual soul as the essential form of the body and the source of intellect and will. There is a tendency to look at it as humans have souls and not any other creature having a soul.

I just wonder how far off from the natural meaning of doctrines/dogmas things can be pushed. How far different from traditional meanings the truth might actually reside.

Marcia

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

marica-

Humans and animals both have souls. They are what the Bible calls nephesh in Hebrew.

 

[nyj]

Animals and humans (nephesh) did not die before the Fall, so the slow process of evolution does not fit with the Biblical record. Creation is described as being "very good" and conscious creatures do not suffer and die in a "very good" creation.

Note that plants and other non-conscious organisms such as microorganisms are not what the Bible called "nephesh," in other words, they don't have souls.

The only thing that Catholics must believe is that Adam and Eve were originally granted immortality. We are not required to believe that animals were given such a gift as well.

As a matter of fact, I'd contend that that would not make much sense. What sort of speciail gift would immortality be for Adam and Eve, if the animals were given this gift as well?

Animals indeed have souls, but they are not immortal souls.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

The only thing that Catholics must believe is that Adam and Eve were originally granted immortality. We are not required to believe that animals were given such a gift as well.

As a matter of fact, I'd contend that that would not make much sense. What sort of speciail gift would immortality be for Adam and Eve, if the animals were given this gift as well?

Animals indeed have souls, but they are not immortal souls.

It also doesn't make sense that a lion eating a gazelle while it is still alive can be called "very good" by a loving God, no?

 

[nyj]

It also doesn't make sense that a lion eating a gazelle while it is still alive can be called "very good" by a loving God, no?

Nature (in action) is amoral. It is neither good, nor evil. Lions do not have evil intentions, just as gazelles do not have good intentions.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Ok, we will have to agree to disagree on that one nyj. I just don't see such pain as being very good to a loving God.

 

[nyj]

Ok, we will have to agree to disagree on that one nyj. I just don't see such pain as being very good to a loving God.

That's fine by me, as long as we both understand that neither one of our opinions contradicts any dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

That's fine by me, as long as we both understand that neither one of our opinions contradicts any dogma of the Catholic Church.

Indeed.