True, but I believe that birds did evolve before the mammals that are mentioned. Not all species are mentioned in Genesis. I have to wonder if the “great sea monsters” mentioned could be seen as a reference to dinosaurs.
I don’t understand, can you elaborate ?
But was Adam’s disobedience truly the first sin? I would say no… the first sin came later. Sin must be done with the conscience knowledge that you are doing wrong. According to the story Adam would not have had knowledge until AFTER he at from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. According to the story his first sin was when he tried to blame Eve for his own action, but not the action itself.
This has been one of the contradictions which we have been taught from day one. The other being that we all know that the sins of our fathers were not our sins and we are only responsible for our own choices. But the we have also been taught that we inherited the sin of Adam, the Original Sin. When I was a kid that was taught as a “black mark on the soul” and that “we were born evil and in need of salvation.” Today, and I think rightly so, it is taught that we are born good but from the start we can be led to evil. That is far more in line with my thinking. We did not inherit Adam’s sin. What we inherited was the conscience which gave us the ability to sin!
True, Satan is against God, but is he OPPOSED to God? God is all good so He could not be the one to offer us the free choice to do evil. Yet in order to be able to do good we had to have the free choice to do evil. I can see where that might be the task assigned to Satan. I don’t accept any sort of conflict in heaven or anything like that. With an all-powerful God how could there be such a thing? I think the relationship between God and Satan is more like that found in Job than elsewhere. In the example you cited about Peter, Peter was in fact acting for Satan in trying to suggest that Christ should not fulfill His destiny.
You are correct in pointing out that it is not God’s will that we do evil. He has given Satan permission to offer us evil so we do have the ability to do good.
I did explain this somewhat in my conversation with mVitus. An extremely real personal experience has led me to believe that the Church is incorrect when it says that animals do not have souls and cannot be saved. The Bible does agree with me on this one:
_Isiah 11:6-9 _
6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
Aristotle believed in four types of Earth-bound souls, the top two being the animistic or animal soul and the human soul which is capable of intelligent thought. My experience has taught me to believe that any creature which as learned to love within its own limitations we will find in heaven. For example there have been several cases of dogs who instead of running away from fire have run into it to try to save their masters.
It’s been my understanding that knowledge of good and evil meant personal knowledge. To give an example, it’s one thing to cognitively know breaking your funny bone is painful. It’s another to break your funny bone and personally know that pain. Going from Genesis, A&E already knew they were not to eat the fruit. So when they took it, they already knew they were doing wrong. But after eating, they personally knew what sin was and its temptations. (If I’m wrong, I appreciate correction.)
This is a totally different topic so I don’t want to get into it here, but you might consider researching the Eastern Catholic approach to Original Sin. It doesn’t have the personal guilt. (Which does make Mary’s conception, while Immaculate, nothing special.)
Free will. Between God or not God, some choose not God. And with it lose Heaven. Lose all that God gives us.
Are you going into the view where in Job Satan acts more as a prosecutor for God as opposed to an enemy of God? (I know Job wouldn’t be the totality of such a view, but it’s a handy example.)
Incorrect. Not Scriptural. Speculation only. We each get Original Sin because we are descended from Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12:
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Not Scriptural. Mary was without sin so the The Word could be made flesh. It was extremely special and important.
To be clear, are you talking about the Eastern Catholic view? Recall I said that in the Eastern view, there is no personal guilt from Original Sin. By that view the Immaculate Conception is not unique. That’s not the same as saying she wasn’t Immaculately Conceived.
There’s a lot of that going around.
It is hard to say goodbye to that which we love. But, love is never lost. Those moments of companionship exist within eternity. That our particular animal friends will be resurrected however, it’s a different story. There kind of being with all its instinctive strengths and beauty would be there with us in paradise. We will know again the best that they are, exemplifying eternal virtues. That’s how I see it.
I did. Logically, a circular reasoning error. For instance, an evolutionist finds another bone that doesn’t fit his schema and simply redefines his terms to close his imaginary circle.
But I tire of the dance so let’s cut to the chase. What difference does your belief system that man is just another animal mean to one’s respect for human life?
Your beliefs bought us the holocaust, countless genocides and abortion under the guise that the less evolved human life is non-human and may be eliminated by the more evolved human life. The aggressors often identified themselves as “the human beings” denying that status to their victims. Look it up.
That first sentence notes that atheists, for the most part, discuss God on fundamentalist terms with fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist Christians take note, if you can’t move past fundamentalism, you are providing a free buffet for atheists, and you make it easy for them to provide objections to Christianity which can draw people away from faith…This is what happens when you can’t integrate science with faith.
Even if a person is not strong in their faith, at the very least, a thinking person intuitively knows reason should not be at odds with faith. And so they should object to your fundamentalism, and guess what…when you provide them with errant conceptions of faith, it is your responsibility when they are scandalized.
How did Buddhism bring about the Holocaust? How did evolution bring about Christian anti-Semitism, which was around long before 1859; see Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” or the 1389 massacre of Jews in Cologne for two example. How did Buddhism or evolution cause either of those?
You are grossly oversimplifying history here. What next, is evolution responsible for the slave trade in America as well?
- People have been able to dehumanize others for thousands of years.
- Evolution is a science based with explaining the physical origin of species. Any thoughts of superiority/inferiority are philosophical, not biological, claims. Much in the same way evolution is not inherently opposed to God, it is also not inherently opposed to the equality of men. Given that the majority of people in the developed world accept evolution, you’d expect a lot more superiority/inferiority claims if that was an inherent part of evolution. Most people however are reasonable.
All true. But note that if an atheist is discussing God with any given Christian, then that Christian determines the terms under which the conversation is going to proceed.
Your God is different from Vonsalza’s for example. Any discussion you and I have is going to be based on what YOU believe Him to be. It would be a waste of our time discussing something in which you didn’t believe.
At this point it is worth reiterating that my God is more powerful than all of these other, lesser gods that exist as contrivances only because my God is so merciful. But he doesn’t directly involve himself much in the day-to-day. “Will” and all that.
What you are doing (and certainly what anyone in the business of genocide is almost certainly doing) might be classed as a categorical error.
There are perhaps four ways to consider a person. Right down at the most fundemental level we can be described as a collection of fermions and bosons etc and quantum fields. All operating within what Frank Wilczek called the Core Theory. This is what a particle physicist thinks of.
Then we have the biologists intermediate view where she considers us as a collection of cells and nerve fibres and chemical reactions.
We can go a step further and consider Man as being part of the kingdom Animalia as an anthropologist does and how we relate to primates etc and consider Man’s position in the grand taxanomic scheme.
Then we have the big picture when we look at the complete person as an autonomous being with wants and needs and emotions. Where we consider the person to be a unique individual.
The vocabulary we use for each viewpoint is obviously different and we should not make the mistake of mixing up the language that is pertinent to one viewpoint with another. So if you want to talk about people being nothing more than a collection of atoms then the only vocabulary you should be using is that of the physicist. If you want to talk about man as being part of the evolutionary history of primates then you need to talk as an anthropologist.
So if you describe man as per the biological classification system and how he relates to the process of evolution then it makes no sense to change your vocabulary to that which is relevant to societies and try to make the two concepts fit.
That’s true but it is beside the point, which is this:
the dominant atheists objections to God and religion address fundamentalist Christianity, not Catholicism.
“God kills people in the bible, God is cruel. It says so in your bible”
“Christians don’t accept mainstream science, just look at what it says in your Genesis”
And many in this thread provide easy fodder for those objections because they don’t understand the faith they profess.
IF any given Christian were to suggest that God had ordered the killing of inoccent women and children then the discussion might proceed from my point that THIS particular God would appear to be unjust and cruel.
And IF any given Christian denied basic scientific facts (hi, Ed), then the discussion might proceed from my point that the poster is a science denying fundamentalist out of touch with reality.
But the Christian is always playing the white pieces and makes the first move. I can only respond accordingly.
To the degree that we cultivate our relationship with Him - in prayer, in charitable works, in contemplation of the scriptural dialogue He has left us through the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the Eucharist and our presence as a community thereby establishing His presence as the body of Christ, He is present always before us, guiding our lives and healing our spirit, witnessed through His glory or the horror that arises when He turns His face away.