Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Vance said:Risen from the dust, just having glanced through these posts, it seems you have done a great job covering the issues. I will spend some time reading them in detail and then responding to a number of areas. It looks like I will be agreeing with much of it, but I am sure there will be some areas to discuss further! :0)
Matthew777 said:It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.
Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?
The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.
Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.
Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?
Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!
Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.
May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.
Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?
The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.
Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.
Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?
Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!
Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.
In the end, Augustine rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and believed that Creation occurred in an instant, but that not all was immediately present.
If we are right in finding the distinction between eternity and time in the fact that without motion and change there is no time, while in eternity there is no change, who can fail to see that there would have been no time, if there had been no creation to bring in movement and change, and that time depends on this motion and change, and is measured by the longer or shorter
intervals by which things that cannot happen simultaneously succeed one another? Since God, in whose eternity there is no change at all, is the creator and director of time, I cannot see how it can be said that he created the world after a lapse of ages, unless it is asserted that there was some creation before this world existed, whose movements would make possible the course of time.
Risen said:It seems reasonable that death was a natural part of the lifeforms that preceeded Adam and Eve's appearance on earth -- but that Adam and Eve were effectively "set apart" from death in the garden.
Some would likewise suggest that in their initial phase they were essentially created immortal, being a little lower than the angels in their connection with God. Conversely, after their fall, some would suggest that they were now mortal, being slightly elevated from the animals in their ability to reason.
As far as why there would be such a sharp distinction between the "long ages" supposed to be represented by the "days of creation" in the first chapter of Genesis -- and the literal 24 hour days that are then envisioned with the arrival of Adam and Eve -- some would note that the Lord
rested between these two phases of creation.
Most conservative Christians will readilly admit that it is unlikely that God actually became "tired" and therefore "needed" to rest. Instead, it is supposed that God "resting" might actually infer that he "slowed down" (or perhaps "arrested the pace of the development" of his creation) so that he might experience life in real time as those created in his image would.
Within the Scriptures it is often alluded in some way that a "day with the Lord is as a thousand year." One could take this literally or one could take this figuratively. As a Catholic, I take this figuratively. But either way one looks at it, it seems as though time might pass differently from the Lord's perspective on high, a kind of time-diltation so to speak.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in prayerful meditation on the nature of time and God, was very insistant about the belief that that time does not work the same way in the afterlife as it does here. In fact, they had a special term for it, and would contrast three different temporal modalities -- the ordinary flow of events we experience here on earth, called "time;" the perpetual present that God experiences, called "eternity;" and the middle, less well understood state experienced by those in the afterlife, known as "aeviternity.".
It has been suggested that this "rest" as outlined within the early chapters of Genesis perhaps simply imply God switching his perception of time from the grander perspective (where for him long eras pass quickly like days) to Adam and Eve's perspective (where time is experienced as we experience it today).
a) so long as they can be harmonized with the Scriptures (such as the predictions of eclipes, the employing of physics, the concept of an earth floating in space)
b) so long as they do not contradict the Scriptures (such as Anaximander's concept of eternal pre-existing matter from which the universe brings forth endless cycles of generation and regeneration).
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
God didnt find some preexisting matter -- like something co-eternal with himself, out of which to construct the world; but he himself set it up from absolutely nothing
And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...it may be understood that he made nothing previously
City of God, XI:6
Instead, God planted "seminal seeds" within His Creation of many things that would
develop later. As one writer summarized it:
Augustine saw three phases of creation: the "unchangeable forms in the Word of God,"
"seminal seeds" created in the instant of creation, and a later "springing forth" in the course of
time.
Some get confused about what he actually believed, because he phrased it almost as
obscurely as Genesis!
bevets said:Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism,* is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. ,
He notes that the text discusses "six days" of creation (which is true, that IS what is in the text, the question is whether it is read literally or figuratively), then he mentions that the text also describes it as being made "all together".
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He then explains why the "six day" motif was there: for the benefit of the general readers' understanding of the process. He said that some might not be able to grasp the concept of God creating all things at the same time, so he chose to describe it instead as a step by step process, setting out the six figurative days.
"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Romans 11:35-36 (NIV)
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:15-17 (NIV)
Aquinas discussed Augustine's view of immediate creation, and contrasted it with other commentators view that the six days were literal. In his Summa, he said "So as not to prejudice either view, we must deal with the reasons for both."
In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence." Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read,
"In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."
So, Augustine did not think the six days of Creation were historically literal, but they were still TRUE. And, again, this is what TE's say.
We do not say that the six day narrative is false. It is true in the sense that it truly conveys what God intended it to convey, a method for us to grasp and hold on to the great truths of God's Creative work. If it is not MEANT to be literal history, then it is still TRUE even if it is not literal history.
I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist
creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic
creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness
fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman
Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.
We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers
De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39
"The elements of this corporeal world have also their well defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a man from a beast, nor a beast from a man"
(De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32)
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day -- I mean that, brothersjust as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character. Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God - I say this to your shame.
But someone may ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come? How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[If knowledge conflicts with Scripture] there is a call for allegorical interpretation of it. The meaning of allegorical interpretation is: extension of the significance of an expression from real to metaphorical significance, without forsaking therein the standard metaphorical practices of Arabic, such as calling a thing by the name of something resembling it or a cause or consequence or accompaniment of it, or other things such as are enumerated in accounts of the kinds of metaphorical speech.
The reason why we have received a Scripture with both an apparent and an inner meaning lies in the diversity of peoples natural capacities and the difference of their innate dispositions with regard to assent. The reason why we have received in Scripture texts whose apparent meanings contradict each other is in order to draw the attention of those who are well grounded in science to the interpretation which reconciles them. This is the idea referred to in the words received from the Exalted, He it is who has sent down to you the Book, containing certain verses clear and definite [and so on] down to the words those who are well grounded in science.
ashibaka said:Anyway, all I have to add to the current discussion is that I don't think St. Augustine would slander anything as "scientific idolatry" except for atheistic theories of the creation of the universe, which are non-Christian by definition.
Well, Anaximander was proposing a Godless creation and cosmology (the apeiron). I'm not trying to decide anything for you, but I'm just saying that based on St. Augustine's favorable opinion of science in general I think he would have found evolution and natural selection compatible with Christianity, regardless of whether he would actually accept it as correct. It was the medieval theory of creation, i.e. the belief that God created the universe in some definite way, that he was unwilling to compromise on.Risen from the Dust said:As noted above, I don't claim that this possibility of "scientific idoloatry" is the only possibility -- yet you've approached this discourse apparently with a sweeping assertion basically stating that you think this possibility is outside the scope of all the possible outcomes -- at least, that's how I've understood your statement..
It is a given, as far I've read and pointed out, that St. Augustine rejected the basic elements of evolutionary speciation as outlined within Greek philosophies that he was aware of within his own time -- notably Anaximander's concepts which seems to have preceeded evolutionary thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?