What is theistic evolution?

[Boleslaw]

After catching Fade's attention to this basic idea here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6297&page=17) about the fact that many Christians do indeed support the theory of evolution, Im quite surprised that more discussion on the matter didnt generate.

Oh well.....as I said: anybody who thinks that all Christians support creationism/Intelligent design and are fanatically against the theory of evolution...think again. In fact there's a school of thought called "Theistic evolution" that seeks reconcile evolution with Biblical accounts.

Here's a basic outline of the idea:

http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

Question: "What is theistic evolution?"


Answer: Theistic Evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being Atheistic Evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian Evolution) and Special Creation.

Atheistic Evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc). Special Creation says that God created life directly, either from scratch or from preexisting materials. (There are a variety of Special Creation hypotheses reflecting a variety of Theistic traditions. For the purpose of this article we will focus on the Biblical Christian perspective.) Theistic Evolution says one of two things:

That, while there is a God, He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.



Or, that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path which it took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.



There are numerous differences between the Biblical Special Creation perspective and the Theistic Evolution perspective. Perhaps the most significant difference concerns their respective views on death. Theistic Evolutionists tend to believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that the geologic column containing the fossil record represents long epochs of time. Since man does not appear until late in the fossil record, Theistic Evolutionists believe that many creatures lived, died and became extinct long before man’s belated arrival. This means that death existed before man Adam’s sin.



Biblical Creationists (as Biblical Special Creationists are often called) tend to believe that the earth is relatively young and that the fossil record was laid down during and after Noah’s Flood. The stratification of the layers is thought to have occurred due to hydrologic sorting and liquefaction, both of which are observed phenomena. This puts the fossil record and the death and carnage which it describes hundreds of years after Adam’s sin.



Another significant difference between the two positions is how they read Genesis. Theistic Evolutionists tend to subscribe to either the Day-Age theory or the Framework Theory, both of which are allegorical interpretations of the Genesis One Creation Week. Biblical Creationists tend to subscribe to a literal 24-hour reading of Genesis One. (See “Does Genesis chapter 1 literally mean 24-hour days?”)



Both of the two Theistic Evolutionist views are flawed from a Christian prospective in that they don’t line up with the Genesis creation account. Consider:



Theistic Evolutionists imagine a Darwinian scenario in which stars evolved, then our solar system, then earth, then plants and animals, and eventually man. The two Theistic Evolutionist viewpoints disagree as to the role which God played in the unfolding of events, but they generally agree on the Darwinian timeline. This timeline is in conflict with the Genesis creation account. For example, Genesis One says that the earth was created on Day One and that the sun, moon and stars weren’t created until Day Four. Some Progressive Creationists argue that the wording of Genesis suggests that the sun, moon and stars were actually created on Day One but that they couldn’t be seen through earth’s atmosphere until Day Four. Hence their placement on Day Four. This is a bit of a stretch as the Genesis account is pretty clear that the earth didn’t have an atmosphere until Day Two. If the sun, moon and stars were created on Day One, they should have been visible on Day One.


Another example of discordance is, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on Day Five while land animals were not created until Day Six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which says that birds evolved from land animals. The Biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The Theistic Evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.

[Boleslaw]

And here's another website dedicated to this school of thought:
http://www.theisticevolution.org/

Also Wikipedia has an article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism#Roman_Catholic_Church

Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it's the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution.

This notion is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism and most mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature. Many individuals stress the unreliability of Genesis as a scientific text, believing that God guided an evolution of life up to humans.




So yeah....evolutionists and IDers battle away at each other over this! :D

[Boleslaw]

Again from Wikipedia:


Evolutionary biologists who were also theists:

Although evolutionary biologists have often been agnostics (most notably Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin) or atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), from the outset many have had a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who in a joint paper with Charles Darwin in 1858, proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace was effectively a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans.

An early example of this kind of approach came from computing pioneer Charles Babbage who published his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Catholic Church, his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries.

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

[Boleslaw]

Again from Wikipedia: here's an impressive list of people who advocate this position, and many of them are qualified scientists who work in a relevant scientific field.


Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists include

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution"). His book has been strongly criticised by creationists.[10]

Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick;

R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London;

evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003);

biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999);

biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science;

paleontologist Robert T. Bakker;

paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include

theologian-philosopher John Haught of Georgetown University;

theologian Rev. Keith Ward, former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, author of God, Chance, and Necessity;

physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University;

theologian-philosopher Thomas Jay Oord of Northwest Nazarene University

Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory.

[jcs]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Catholic Church, his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries.
In the good ol' days, the Jesuits would have handled Teilhardianism appropriately.
It's basically teleological nonsense of the worst sort. According to de Chardin, we're progressing toward the omega point, at which point man basically becomes, genetically speaking, God. Meaning that humans today are closer to that God than the Prophets, the Apostles, and, uh, Jesus. Genetically speaking.

[Ravenheart]

In the good ol' days, the Jesuits would have handled Teilhardianism appropriately.
It's basically teleological nonsense of the worst sort. According to de Chardin, we're progressing toward the omega point, at which point man basically becomes, genetically speaking, God. Meaning that humans today are closer to that God than the Prophets, the Apostles, and, uh, Jesus. Genetically speaking.

Your emphasis on genetics makes me wonder whether you have actually bothered to read his work. If not, I recommend The Phenomenon of Man. As a Christian, you might appreciate The Divine Milieu.

[jcs]

Omega point is a term invented by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to describe the ultimate maximum level of complexity-consciousness, considered by him the aim towards which consciousness evolves. Rather than divinity being found "in the heavens" he held that evolution was a process converging toward a "final unity", identical with the Eschaton and with God. According to Chardin and the Russian scholar and biologist Vladimir Vernadsky (author of The Geosphere 1924 and The Biosphere 1926), the planet is in a transformative process, metamorphosing from the biosphere into the noosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point
That he contradicts established dogma while still remaining a Jesuit, I'll pass.

[Ravenheart]

That he contradicts established dogma while still remaining a Jesuit, I'll pass.

I suppose one of the benefits of adhering to an organised, dogmatic religion is being able to dismiss certain views out of hand. Concluding something is wrong just because it contradicts the official position of the Catholic Church, seems like a variant of the Argumentum ad verecundiam to me. That is, a logical fallacy.

[jcs]

I suppose one of the benefits of adhering to an organised, dogmatic religion is being able to dismiss certain views out of hand. Concluding something is wrong just because it contradicts the official position of the Catholic Church, seems like a variant of the Argumentum ad verecundiam to me. That is, a logical fallacy.
x is true
y contradicts x
:. y is false

Substitute in Catholic dogma for x, anything that contradicts Church dogma for y. The conclusion follows.
If the first premise is true, it is a waste of time to study anything that contradicts dogma. To elaborate: skepticism is actually harmful when one is skeptical about that which is true; skepticism is only of value when it is used toward the end of destroying falsehoods.
Of course, you are skeptical about that first premise, as you subjectively ought to be, not having an inkling of knowledge about the truth of Catholicism. Too bad, though: a subject can question truth, but objectively, he errs.
Now, one could simply substitute in anything for x, claim personal insight (gnosis) into the truth, and talk about how the misfortune of all the doubters. Note that this is basically what people do anyway, and subjectively, everyone is correct in his doubt.

But returning to why I refuse to read de Chardin (at least at the moment; years from now, I'll probably read his writings and offer a far more in-depth criticism, at least for my own use): he contradicts Catholic dogma while remaining a Jesuit--he contradicts himself.
I also want to point out that he contradicts the basic assumptions of Darwinism. Natural selection is as far from teleology as as a theory can get: in fact, it rejects genetic teleology. Creatures have within themselves no genetic destiny; we just undergo mutation and some of these mutations are 'weeded out,' while others outbreed the rest.
From a theistic standpoint, we could say that God guided evolution by guiding genes on a mollecular level toward certain mutations, and guiding the environment to weed-out certain traits. And when questioning why God would do this, we can offer Leibniz' response: the world as it is, is the best the world could possibly be.
Anywho, religion is about--religion. When it comes to thinking about science, all answers are rather trivial. Notice that no Catholic really took much concern with explaining evolution and science and so forth using Catholic presuppositions until non-Catholics began to use science as a reason to dismiss religion. I consider theistic evolution to be little more than scientific apologetics, and I consider de Chardin's ideas to be failed apologetics (because he contradicts science, he is unpopular with many Darwinists; because he contradicts dogma, he hasn't brought many to the faith).

[Sinclair]

It seems to me that theistic evolution is a bit of a workaround, devised by people who want to both accept what is most scientific, but also retain their faith in God and their religion. It isn't fully faithful to their religion, and is it fully faithful to the "questioning" that is an important part of science? I doubt it...

[jcs]

It isn't fully faithful to their religion
Doesn't contradict the religion. The Catholic Church has not said that one cannot believe in evolution.

and is it fully faithful to the "questioning" that is an important part of science?
No, but it's not scientific in the sense that we usually use the term. I don't think it has claimed to be. The idea is this: "let's say science is correct (it doesn't contradict dogma, anyway, so it might be)--could God, who is omnipotent, have created man through this means? I think an omipotent being could do that. So let's speculate about the 'hows' and 'whys.'"

[Sinclair]

Doesn't contradict the religion. The Catholic Church has not said that one cannot believe in evolution.

I wasn't referring to the Catholic church in particular... Although I should have made that clear, since I already knew the position on evolution.

No, but it's not scientific in the sense that we usually use the term. I don't think it has claimed to be. The idea is this: "let's say science is correct (it doesn't contradict dogma, anyway, so it might be)--could God, who is omnipotent, have created man through this means? I think an omipotent being could do that. So let's speculate about the 'hows' and 'whys.'"

I think it sort of comes out an awkward mix myself. Science is accepted up to a certain point, but then religion is brought back in.

[jcs]

I think it sort of comes out an awkward mix myself. Science is accepted up to a certain point, but then religion is brought back in.
Science and religion are not antitheses. Crazed fundamentalism and rabid materialism, however, are: theistic evolution is the synthesis of two insanities toward the demonstration that sane science and sane religion needn't be at odds.

[Sinclair]

Science and religion are not antitheses. Crazed fundamentalism and rabid materialism, however, are: theistic evolution is the synthesis of two insanities toward the demonstration that sane science and sane religion needn't be at odds.

But what happens when science clearly contradicts something in religion? In the case of evolution, some of the religious types alter their beliefs, deciding that the contradicted belief was really a misinterpretation, while others just entrench themselves and argue against science using mostly religion.

And even though the Vatican's policy seems to be that evolution is correct, I believe that Catholic schools here in Ontario teach creationism in science class.

[jcs]

But what happens when science clearly contradicts something in religion?
Either science or religion is wrong. Note that, in the case of the Catholic Church, science has never contradicted dogma.

In the case of evolution, some of the religious types alter their beliefs, deciding that the contradicted belief was really a misinterpretation
Sort of like how, in the case of science, a scientist will alter his belief when new evidence is presented? This is usually because a highly dogmatic reading of, say, the Bible does not necessitate that one believes something which contradicts science, but lacking the science, one will assume that the thing out of the Bible which could be interpreted (misinterpreted) as giving an explaination is correct. Meaning: the default hypothesis for a believer is to render a religious belief scientific, just for the sake of providing some sort of answer to a likely trivial question. When science comes along and offers a more adequate scientific answer, the sensible believer will (after, of course, applying the necessary scientific rigor, unless the question is so trivial that he just wants an answer--some answer, any answer--to appease his curiosity) alter his views.

while others just entrench themselves and argue against science using mostly religion.
Generally, these people are blatantly wrong. And they're usually Protestants.

And even though the Vatican's policy seems to be that evolution is correct, I believe that Catholic schools here in Ontario teach creationism in science class.
They don't cover evolution at all, even if only to say, "This is what others believe"? I'm not one of the people who think a student should be presented with all alternatives (evolution, creationism, ID, etc.), but it might not be a bad idea for a student to learn what the scientific community and most of the Western world believes, or at least has knowledge of.

[Sinclair]

Either science or religion is wrong. Note that, in the case of the Catholic Church, science has never contradicted dogma.

Question, not being confrontational, I hope: Isn't this because generally the Church will change its dogma with scientific discoveries?


Sort of like how, in the case of science, a scientist will alter his belief when new evidence is presented? This is usually because a highly dogmatic reading of, say, the Bible does not necessitate that one believes something which contradicts science, but lacking the science, one will assume that the thing out of the Bible which could be interpreted (misinterpreted) as giving an explaination is correct. Meaning: the default hypothesis for a believer is to render a religious belief scientific, just for the sake of providing some sort of answer to a likely trivial question. When science comes along and offers a more adequate scientific answer, the sensible believer will (after, of course, applying the necessary scientific rigor, unless the question is so trivial that he just wants an answer--some answer, any answer--to appease his curiosity) alter his views.

This is probably the best of both worlds... Christianity has probably been good for the world, frankly, and getting rid of the good parts of it? Can't see that being a good thing, really. I'm volunteering with a faith-based charity my mother's church is involved in, which I think gives me perspective.

Generally, these people are blatantly wrong. And they're usually Protestants.

The Catholic church does seem to be more science-friendly than is probably attributed to it... Does the Vatican have an official who acts as a scientific advisor? I've heard the name Guy Consolmagno, and I believe he's attacked creationism, but he's the Vatican astronomer, I believe.

They don't cover evolution at all, even if only to say, "This is what others believe"? I'm not one of the people who think a student should be presented with all alternatives (evolution, creationism, ID, etc.), but it might not be a bad idea for a student to learn what the scientific community and most of the Western world believes, or at least has knowledge of.

I remember reading something about this in either the Star or the Globe, but Googling ain't bringing anything up... I'll have to figure out the passwords for my family's accounts for those papers.

But if there's no reason, according to Catholic dogma, to be against evolution, I don't see why they'd be teaching creationism in the first place.

[jcs]

Question, not being confrontational, I hope: Isn't this because generally the Church will change its dogma with scientific discoveries?
This is what most anti-Christians assume, but it is false when it comes to the Catholic Church. Dogma has a very specific meaning: it refers to the Church teachings that have been pronounced infallible. Most of the Church's teachings are not infallable; only those truths decided upon in the Nicene Creed, a number of ecumenical councils (21, I believe), and a few of the teachings from certain popes who promulgated said teachings by exercising papal infallibility. A pope is only infallible when he exercises his infallibility in teaching that a doctrine holds true for all the Church. Popes rarely use their infallibility.
Furthermore, Catholic dogma never changes: the Church does not go back on dogmatic teachings, and only adds to dogma when making something explicit that was previously presumed implicit, usually because some heretics begin to cast doubt on some aspect of this implicit belief.

Does the Vatican have an official who acts as a scientific advisor? I've heard the name Guy Consolmagno, and I believe he's attacked creationism, but he's the Vatican astronomer, I believe.
The Vatican has a official group (probably even groups) of people who look into scientific issues. I don't know much about this, but I recall reading something about some sort of science group in an article recently.

But if there's no reason, according to Catholic dogma, to be against evolution, I don't see why they'd be teaching creationism in the first place.
Catholics aren't required to believe in evolution, no more than they are required to not believe in it. Private schools can teach pretty much whatever they want on the issue.

[Sinclair]

This is what most anti-Christians assume, but it is false when it comes to the Catholic Church. Dogma has a very specific meaning: it refers to the Church teachings that have been pronounced infallible. Most of the Church's teachings are not infallable; only those truths decided upon in the Nicene Creed, a number of ecumenical councils (21, I believe), and a few of the teachings from certain popes who promulgated said teachings by exercising papal infallibility. A pope is only infallible when he exercises his infallibility in teaching that a doctrine holds true for all the Church. Popes rarely use their infallibility.
Furthermore, Catholic dogma never changes: the Church does not go back on dogmatic teachings, and only adds to dogma when making something explicit that was previously presumed implicit, usually because some heretics begin to cast doubt on some aspect of this implicit belief.

So creationism was never dogma then? Cool, I learned something today.

Catholics aren't required to believe in evolution, no more than they are required to not believe in it. Private schools can teach pretty much whatever they want on the issue.

I believe that in Ontario there's a separate Catholic School Board, and Catholic schools are public. There's some wierdness with how it's funded, people might get to choose whether their tax money goes to the ordinary public schools, or the Catholic schools, or something like that.

[jcs]

So creationism was never dogma then?
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."
-from the Nicene Creed, 381
Catholics believe in creation. Creationism is a fairly recent thing.

[Fade the Butcher]

That, while there is a God, He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over.

This point of view has been refuted by Biblical scholars.

Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890514119/104-5083650-0527952?v=glance&n=283155)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0890514119.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The Lie: Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890511586/ref=pd_sim_b_3/104-5083650-0527952?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0890511586.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

[jcs]

This point of view has been refuted by Biblical scholars.
You mean, "by heretics."

[Keystone]

Popes rarely use their infallibility.
Or their x-ray vision.
Furthermore, Catholic dogma never changes: the Church does not go back on dogmatic teachings, and only adds to dogma when making something explicit that was previously presumed implicit, usually because some heretics begin to cast doubt on some aspect of this implicit belief.
Presumed implicit by whom? Like the all-of-a sudden-immaculate conception of Mary dogma. It only took 1800 years.

[jcs]

Or their x-ray vision.
LOL UR SO FUNNY!!!!

Presumed implicit by whom?
The nearly two-millenia-old institution which happens to have also been the first Christian church.

Like the all-of-a sudden-immaculate conception of Mary dogma. It only took 1800 years.
Mary was always assumed to have been without sin.

[Janus]

Can one become a Roman Catholic if one propounds the theory of evolution?

[Ahknaton]

Can one become a Roman Catholic if one propounds the theory of evolution?
The short answer is yes. The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution and Catholicism are compatible, as long as science doesn't presume to be able to make statements on metaphysical or spiritual matters. In other words: evolution = okay, philosophical materialism = not okay.

[Vindex]

Should people really care about the opinion of people who let the pope do their thinking for them, it strikes me as sub-man to do so. They are no different from flag wavers who let Bush do the same for them.

[Keystone]

LOL UR SO FUNNY!!!!
I didn't mean it to be funny. The Pope is no more infallible than you are. It was a clever device, invented by men to control.
The nearly two-millenia-old institution which happens to have also been the first Christian church.
The Jews and then the Greeks were before Rome. The Orthodox are just as old. We've had Protestants for going on 500 years. They were/are all different flavors of Christianity. I don't hold one over the other.


Mary was always assumed to have been without sin.
The Vatican toyed with the idea 500 years ago, and it was optional. So much for infallibility.

It's not good to follow blindly around after the RCC, jcs. It's been outed as wrong and corrupt so many times. It's not something to be rooting for to be proprietary about. You need to think for yourself.

[jcs]

You need to think for yourself.
Free thought is a retarded dead-end. Been there, done that. Truth is better, and an institution that has a couple millenia of practice teaching the truth probably knows better than a single individual.

Examine your conscience: to what degree is the idol of free thought the manifestation of pride?

[Keystone]

Free thought is a retarded dead-end. Been there, done that. Truth is better, and an institution that has a couple millenia of practice teaching the truth probably knows better than a single individual.
The Jews and the Talmud have been around a long time, too.

I know many long-time Catholics who don't toe the Vatican line on every bit of dogma. Some in my family. The family traditions built around the church keeps most of them in.

Examine your conscience: to what degree is the idol of free thought the manifestation of pride?
It's not pride, it's serious doubt.

[jcs]

The Jews and the Talmud have been around a long time, too.
This is irrelevant; I didn't say that the Church is correct by virtue of its age.

I know many long-time Catholics who don't toe the Vatican line on every bit of dogma. Some in my family. The family traditions built around the church keeps most of them in.
They are wrong, and insofar as they doubt Catholic dogma, they are not Catholic. Definitionally.

It's not pride, it's serious doubt.
It's pride. I don't think you examined your conscience seriously at all.

[Helios Panoptes]

And the world waits patiently for someone, anyone at all, to demonstrate that the Pope is less fallible than anyone else.

[jcs]

And the world waits patiently for someone, anyone at all, to demonstrate that the Pope is less fallible than anyone else.
Alternatively, one could demonstrate that, when acting in his infallible capacity, he has been fallible. That might be interesting. Good luck with that, by the way.

But, really, how could this be demonstrated? "Holy Spirit, etc." Ok, how am I supposed to demonstrate this? How could anyone? Instead, let's take a little glance at what is said by the pope when exercising his infallibility. Is any of it fallible? Is any of it wrong? Nope, nope.

[Fade the Butcher]

It's not good to follow blindly around after the RCC, jcs. It's been outed as wrong and corrupt so many times. It's not something to be rooting for to be proprietary about. You need to think for yourself.

Silver argues in his book that the Catholic Church held, following Aquinas who lifted the idea from Aristotle and mysticized it, that "ensoulment" occurs six weeks into a pregnancy from the fourteenth century until 1869.

[Keystone]

This is irrelevant; I didn't say that the Church is correct by virtue of its age.
But you just said.....
They are wrong, and insofar as they doubt Catholic dogma, they are not Catholic. Definitionally.
The Church would disagree. They are Catholics by virtue of their baptism. They haven't been excommunicated yet. Perfectly Legal.
It's pride. I don't think you examined your conscience seriously at all.
It's just plain doubt and in some cases, reason. You can follow Church teachings to the nth degree if you like. I stopped doing that 25 years ago; so did a lot of other folks who I respect. There's just too much that isn't cricket.

[jcs]

But you just said.....
I said the Church has been teaching truth for a long while.

The Church would disagree.
No it wouldn't. I'll explain:

They are Catholics by virtue of their baptism. They haven't been excommunicated yet. Perfectly Legal.
A baptised Catholic can be apostate without being excommunicated, right? I was apostate, more or less, for about five years. I said many things which were quite blasphemous, and certainly contrary to Catholic dogma. Were these words Catholic?
I wrote: "They are wrong, and insofar as they doubt Catholic dogma, they are not Catholic. Definitionally."
Take a very devout individual, even a saint: if he questioned Catholic dogma, he would not be Catholic on that issue. This is what 'insofar' means in the above sentence. I put that word there for a reason ;)

It's just plain doubt and in some cases, reason. You can follow Church teachings to the nth degree if you like.
All Catholics ought to.

I stopped doing that 25 years ago; so did a lot of other folks who I respect.
I didn't say that those who question the Church on certain issues are, as people, unworthy of respect.

There's just too much that isn't cricket.
Such as?

[Keystone]

Silver argues in his book that the Catholic Church held, following Aquinas who lifted the idea from Aristotle and mysticized it, that "ensoulment" occurs six weeks into a pregnancy from the fourteenth century until 1869.
You've always had a lot of monkey-business going on in Roman Catholic theology. Making Mary into a demi-goddess, the legions of saints, limbo, purgatory, transubstantiation, infallible popes overtruning previous infallible decisions, pedophiles granting absolution for sins, blah...

It's an entrenched nightmare at times.

[Keystone]

Such as?
See above....

[jcs]

Making Mary into a demi-goddess, the legions of saints, limbo, purgatory, transubstantiation,
All correct.

infallible popes overtruning previous infallible decisions
Proof? There is a lot of dispute over which pronouncements are infallible and which are not. Popes rarely exercise their infallibility. Show me an instance in which a pope has used his infallible ability to overturn a previous infallible decision.

pedophiles granting absolution for sins
Paedophilia is inexcusable, but a paedophile acting in his priestly capacity, as an instrument of God, could concievably still grant absolution for others' sins.

[Keystone]

A baptised Catholic can be apostate without being excommunicated, right? I was apostate, more or less, for about five years. I said many things which were quite blasphemous, and certainly contrary to Catholic dogma. Were these words Catholic?

You pick at straws, man. Being apostate doesn't mean you aren't Catholic anymore. You can go to a priest to confess your apostacy and be forgiven. That wouldn't be possible if you weren't Catholic.

How weak was your baptism if just by uttering some uncatholic-like words makes it null and void?

[jcs]

You pick at straws, man. Being apostate doesn't mean you aren't Catholic anymore. You can go to a priest to confess your apostacy and be forgiven. That wouldn't be possible if you weren't Catholic.

How weak was your baptism if just by uttering some uncatholic-like words makes it null and void?
That's not what I said. Once again, 'insofar...'

[Fade the Butcher]

Keystone,

What sort of reception do you think theistic evolution would have gotten back in the sixteenth century?

[Keystone]

Keystone,

What sort of reception do you think theistic evolution would have gotten back in the sixteenth century?
A very hot one. Literally.

I watch EWTN frequently. They now have a very sizeable audience in the US, and growing overseas. Whatever they say has an imprimatur attached, I have no doubt. They are soft-peddling Genesis 1-11 like you wouldn't believe. This is the trend, and it is backpedaling pure and simple. They are surrendering the field to evolution. A bit off from the earlier Church, wouldn't you say?

[Fade the Butcher]

Catholic dogma is infalliable and unchanging.

[il ragno]

It's one thing to defend another's right to his religious beliefs, and quite another to be subjected to a teenage index-finger jabbing me in the chest for days on end.

Take a break already, jcs. You're like a Jehovah's Witness on dianabol and HGH, and as tiresome as you are tireless.

[Keystone]

Proof? There is a lot of dispute over which pronouncements are infallible and which are not. Popes rarely exercise their infallibility. Show me an instance in which a pope has used his infallible ability to overturn a previous infallible decision.
No salvation for those outside the Church---strike that, everybody's saved if you're sincerely seeking God. Jews too! Jeanne D'Arc, witch----no saint! The Avignon popes vs the Romish popes, Pius IX ignores all subsequent popes and assumes Mary sinless. JP II ignores centuries of "tradition" and fast-tracks multitudes o' saints.


Paedophilia is inexcusable, but a paedophile acting in his priestly capacity, as an instrument of God, could concievably still grant absolution for others' sins.
You can't possibly swallow that, can you?

[Keystone]

It's one thing to defend another's right to his religious beliefs, and quite another to be subjected to a teenage index-finger jabbing me in the chest for days on end.

Take a break already, jcs. You're like a Jehovah's Witness on dianabol and HGH, and as tiresome as you are tireless.
He's trying to be more Catholic than the pope, as the saying goes.

[jcs]

No salvation for those outside the Church---strike that, everybody's saved if you're sincerely seeking God. Jews too! Jeanne D'Arc, witch----no saint! The Avignon popes vs the Romish popes, Pius IX ignores all subsequent popes and assumes Mary sinless. JP II ignores centuries of "tradition" and fast-tracks multitudes o' saints.
Which of these things is infallible? What sources did you use which told you which of these pronouncements was infallible?

I think you're bullshitting. As said, popes rarely exercise their infallibility.

You can't possibly swallow that, can you?
Yes.

Take a break already, jcs. You're like a Jehovah's Witness on dianabol and HGH, and as tiresome as you are tireless.
Sorry, I don't feel like tolerating blatant falsehoods which people use as an excuse to reject the Faith, or aspects thereof.

He's trying to be more Catholic than the pope, as the saying goes.
An individual should strive to be as devout as he can. The Pope is far more Catholic than I.

[jcs]

What sort of reception do you think theistic evolution would have gotten back in the sixteenth century?
They would have been killed, probably. Not for doubting dogma, however.

I watch EWTN frequently. They now have a very sizeable audience in the US, and growing overseas. Whatever they say has an imprimatur attached, I have no doubt. They are soft-peddling Genesis 1-11 like you wouldn't believe. This is the trend, and it is backpedaling pure and simple. They are surrendering the field to evolution. A bit off from the earlier Church, wouldn't you say?
I don't believe you are Catholic at all, save in baptism, perhaps.

Catholic dogma is infalliable and unchanging.
When has Catholic dogma ever changed? Where is it fallible? That is, where has there been error?

[Keystone]

I don't believe you are Catholic at all, save in baptism, perhaps.
I've had transcendent moments during Mass and other celebrations that can't be explained by dogma. That came from being immersed in Catholicism for years, by not paying lip-service but just going to the services and doing the rituals. I was an altar boy until my mid-teens in a large parish, and that was a great time, I have to say. We focused on the liturgy and the community we had together. No one worried about if we were sticking to the Catechism, not even the priests.

Stop being such a stuffed-shirt at your age. Find a church that still cares about tradition and have at it. Stop thinking so much about the rules.

[Donny the Punk]

I've had transcendent moments during Mass and other celebrations that can't be explained by dogma. That came from being immersed in Catholicism for years, by not paying lip-service but just going to the services and doing the rituals. I was an altar boy until my mid-teens in a large parish, and that was a great time, I have to say. We focused on the liturgy and the community we had together. No one worried about if we were sticking to the Catechism, not even the priests.

Stop being such a stuffed-shirt at your age. Find a church that still cares about tradition and have at it. Stop thinking so much about the rules.
Very good post.

[jcs]

I've had transcendent moments during Mass and other celebrations that can't be explained by dogma.
It is not the purpose of dogma to explain such things. However, the Church has always held that Mass is necessary, and that it is the highest form of prayer.

No one worried about if we were sticking to the Catechism, not even the priests.
I guarantee the priest didn't break any rules. And who's talking about the 'rules,' here?

Stop thinking so much about the rules.
I only concern myself with 'rules' (catechetics, dogmatics, theology) to this degree while online. Are you proposing we have a Phora Mass? The written medium lends itself better to theoretical discussion.

The reason I don't think you're a very good Catholic: in the text I quoted, you said that the Church has surrendered to evolution (theistic evolution: they haven't; how God created doesn't have much to do with the dogma that God did create), and helped further the non-Catholic argument that the Church has changed its views. The general consensus has changed in light of science, but dogma has not. That is to say, you aren't a good Catholic because you're permitting and furthering dissent from Catholicism. This goes against the teachings of the Church, as the Church Militant is concerned primarily with the salvation of souls, and salvation is impossible outside of the church. It is hard for people to find their way in if the Church is presented as something fallible and true.

[Keystone]

I guarantee the priest didn't break any rules.
Oh yes they did...;)
And who's talking about the 'rules,' here?
You are.
The reason I don't think you're a very good Catholic:
Listen, my friend jcs. I'm a good enough Catholic as I see it. That's between God and myself.

I was never a Legalist, and most Catholics I know, the ones I grew up with, aren't either. Being Catholic was something we did everyday. It was cultural as well as religious. It had an ease about it that dogmatics like you don't know about. It was a familiar comfort, not a stick to beat you into submission.

You're only 18 and overzealous, and I'm probably not the one to calm you down.

[jcs]

Oh yes they did...
That's unfortunate.

You are.
Dogmatics are not really rules. Sure, some things are, but most dogmatic issues are not. I don't think I've mentioned rules and regulations at all, save that one ought to believe in dogma.

Listen, my friend jcs. I'm a good enough Catholic as I see it. That's between God and myself.
Of course it is. I'm not trying to be judgmental, or whatever; that wasn't my intent at least. However, no Catholic should doubt dogma, or say anything that might drive someone from the Church. I will criticize anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who does this.

I was never a Legalist, and most Catholics I know, the ones I grew up with, aren't either. Being Catholic was something we did everyday. It was cultural as well as religious. It had an ease about it that dogmatics like you don't know about. It was a familiar comfort, not a stick to beat you into submission.
Who is beating people into submission? You're questioning dogma; I'm saying you're wrong and asking for proof of your claims, which you have yet to present. As I see it, you have no reason to doubt the Church, not having presented any viable reasons.

You're only 18 and overzealous
Oh. You're old, kind of dismissive, and incorrect about some things. ;)

[il ragno]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2601&page=2

I don't think this is a 'best of' inasmuch as a 'those who find metal moronic, or those who listen to moronic metal: listen to this!' list.
Were it a 'best of,' Darkthrone and Graveland would be required, as with a lot (well, maybe a dozen or so) more albums.

Quote:
How Gorgoroth managed to get into the top ten of that list while Opeth appears nowhere is certainly evidence of a mistake, Vlad.

Listen to Antichrist until you understand that it is a great album, then give your opinion.

While you're lecturing the rest of us on the One True Path To Salvation, perhaps you might pause to give us more recommendations on your favorite Satan-worshipping, church-burning black metal bands.

Relax, Dogma Boy: the mote in your eye is roughly the size of a Mack truck. Not that I ever thought you were anything but an unstable wacko to begin with. They got medication nowadays to help people like you.


Now let's sit back and enjoy some Darkthrone lyrics, shall we? No word yet on the Vatican's take on this band - although I hear Benedict sez "it's got a good beat, and you can dance to it - for all eternity, in the Lake of Fire!"

Blood Of Christians On My Sword

The frost tries to reach us,
with its cruel cold hands
the cold witheness hurts our eyes
and we still march with wind in the face.
We follow the trace of blood in the snow
Yesterday we burnt two villages
We killed women and children
Heads out of the bodies of priests
We impaled on our wooden socle(?)...

The blood of hideous monk
is still getting blacker on my axe
Their temple burnt.
And we fed a fire with their corpses
My brothers are marching silently
The great frost turns the hearts to ice
The warm blood will bring the life back
to their bodies...

Another christian village is near...
those who escaped showed us the way...
by the blood from their wounds...
we must deal them a deathblow
before wolves get them
On the horizon behind us
The black smoke appears on the sky
On the hills, full of trees
Wolves observe us
They'll leave the hills and follow us
as soon as the day is over...

I'd intended to post some Gorgoroth lyrics too - after all, their "Antichrist" is a great album according to JCS - but they threatened legal action against anyone who posts them, so we'll just have to imagine what pearls of wisdom are contained in "Procreating Satan", "Sexual Bloodgargling" or "The Rite of Infernal Invocation".

[Helios Panoptes]

Those lyrics are from Thousand Swords by Graveland, not Darkthrone. It's a good song, in any case.

[Vindex]

Don't mind j.c.s heavy catholic dance it is very normal for a person in such position to rant long and massive. They are really just trying to convince themselves more then anyone else.

[Fade the Butcher]

I give jcs a year, tops, before he jumps out of the Catholic cul-de-sac.

[jcs]

While you're lecturing the rest of us on the One True Path To Salvation, perhaps you might pause to give us more recommendations on your favorite Satan-worshipping, church-burning black metal bands.
I no longer listen to black metal. Gorgoroth is still vastly superior to Opeth.

Don't mind j.c.s heavy catholic dance it is very normal for a person in such position to rant long and massive. They are really just trying to convince themselves more then anyone else.
Fade rants heavily about Darwinism. Is he trying to convince himself? You rant heavily about satanism at times. Are you just trying to convince yourself?
Or is it just that the people with whom you happen to disagree are those who need self-convincing?

I give jcs a year, tops, before he jumps out of the Catholic cul-de-sac.
Place your bets!

[il ragno]

I no longer listen to black metal. Gorgoroth is still vastly superior to Opeth.

You posted that in December of 2005, numbnuts. Now, a whole five months later, you have the brass balls to mount a soapbox for Mother Church and shout down Catholics who've been observant for decades - not to mention all Prots?

Shut up, sit back down at the children's table, and eat your Ritalin like a good boy. In another five months, you're as likely to be a Hare Krishna as a Papist. Which would clash less with your kill the Christians and mount their heads on poles cd collection.

[jcs]

Now, a whole five months later, you have the brass balls to mount a soapbox for Mother Church and shout down Catholics who've been observant for decades - not to mention all Prots?
Yes.

Shut up, sit back down at the children's table, and eat your Ritalin like a good boy. In another five months, you're as likely to be a Hare Krishna as a Papist.
No.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the thread.

[Anarch]

The Jews and then the Greeks were before Rome. The Orthodox are just as old. We've had Protestants for going on 500 years. They were/are all different flavors of Christianity. I don't hold one over the other.

Ex ecclesia nulla salus.

It's not good to follow blindly around after the RCC, jcs. It's been outed as wrong and corrupt so many times. It's not something to be rooting for to be proprietary about. You need to think for yourself.

Go ahead and declare yourself a Protestant then.

[Keystone]

Ex ecclesia nulla salus.
That's not what they're saying now!
Go ahead and declare yourself a Protestant then.
If you're shopping for an All or Nothing type religion, you might try Islam.

You'll be disappointed with modern Catholics.

[jcs]

That's not what they're saying now!
Who? Has the dogma on this issue been changed? Where is the change? You haven't pointed to anything in particular at all in this thread.

[Keystone]

Who? Has the dogma on this issue been changed? Where is the change? You haven't pointed to anything in particular at all in this thread.
Popes praying in synagogues, the Archbishop of Canterbury wearing a pope's class ring, the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical movement. JP II a-whoring after the Orthodox!

They're blinding you with dogma---ba-bump, da-bump.

[jcs]

Popes praying in synagogues, the Archbishop of Canterbury wearing a pope's class ring, the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical movement. JP II a-whoring after the Orthodox!

They're blinding you with dogma---ba-bump, da-bump.
Dogma hasn't changed. JP II (and others) was heavily criticized for his actions.

[Anarch]

That's not what they're saying now!

If you're shopping for an All or Nothing type religion, you might try Islam.

My days of political consciousness began with Islam. I'm not so keen on it any more.

You'll be disappointed with modern Catholics.

No doubt. Old Catholics still exist though.

[Keystone]

My days of political consciousness began with Islam. I'm not so keen on it any more.



[QUOTE]No doubt. Old Catholics still exist though.
And getting Older.

You have a guy down there who runs the Buddhist Society of Western Australia who's MP3 talks I stumbled on about a year ago:

http://www.bswa.org/modules/news/

Ajahn Brahmavamso, an Englishman who's a Theravada Buddhist abbot.

He gives some great common-sense talks on religion and society. He's friendly with RC monks as well. Give it a go.

Click on Dhamma Talks and listen to his lectures. Very entertaining.

:)

[Anarch]

And getting Older.

True. My grandmother was one. She died, though.

You have a guy down there who runs the Buddhist Society of Western Australia who's MP3 talks I stumbled on about a year ago:

http://www.bswa.org/modules/news/

Ajahn Brahmavamso, an Englishman who's a Theravada Buddhist abbot.

He gives some great common-sense talks on religion and society. He's friendly with RC monks as well. Give it a go.

Click on Dhamma Talks and listen to his lectures. Very entertaining.

:)

I'd rather not. Not to sound like a close-minded idiot (I've read Evola's book on Buddhism, it's quite good) but I do prefer something a bit more 'native' as opposed to eastern religion/spirituality.

[Keystone]

True. My grandmother was one. She died, though.



I'd rather not. Not to sound like a close-minded idiot (I've read Evola's book on Buddhism, it's quite good) but I do prefer something a bit more 'native' as opposed to eastern religion/spirituality.
Suit yourself, but his talks are very good, in an overall common-sense outlook on spirituality. He has a great English sense of humor, which enhances the talks.

[jcs]

Suit yourself, but his talks are very good, in an overall common-sense outlook on spirituality. He has a great English sense of humor, which enhances the talks.
Y'know who else has a good overall common-sense outlook on spirituality?
St. Augustin
Thomas a Kempis
Lorenzo Scupolli
St. Francis de Sales

...many, many other Catholics.
Why are you peddling something not only contrary to your supposed religion, but completely alien to your culture?

[anti-climacus]

Popes praying in synagogues, the Archbishop of Canterbury wearing a pope's class ring, the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical movement. JP II a-whoring after the Orthodox!

They're blinding you with dogma---ba-bump, da-bump.

You know he could just state that he is a traditional Catholic and be exempt from the above criticism.

[jcs]

You know he could just state that he is a traditional Catholic and be exempt from the above criticism.
I'm somewhere between conservative and traditional. I side with traditional Catholics on almost every issue, save in their rejection of the Vatican II and the 'New Rite,' both of which are valid, when interpreted in light of Church Tradition. I'd prefer to attend an Indult Latin Mass than the new one, though.

[Keystone]

Y'know who else has a good overall common-sense outlook on spirituality?
St. Augustin
Thomas a Kempis
Lorenzo Scupolli
St. Francis de Sales

...many, many other Catholics.
Why are you peddling something not only contrary to your supposed religion, but completely alien to your culture?
I'm not peddling anything. I enjoy his talks and think they are helpful. It's from a different perspective.

You don't have to be a Buddhist to listen.

your soul will be safe, man.