3John5918
>2 brone: Anyone with a sense of the supernatural will never be lead to misunderstand him
Yes, I agree, which is why it is so surprising that so many people, including apparently your good self, do seem to misunderstand him. I would suggest that you are setting up a very one-dimensional caricature of Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, dare I say even a straw man. I think as theologians reflect on the strengths of his writings, they are at the same time well aware of its weaknesses. There are many people in our Christian tradition who have made significant contributions to a deeper understanding of certain aspects of our faith while perhaps making errors in other respects.
But if you are simply taking a general anti-evolution position, then that is clearly not part of Catholic doctrine, and you are aligning yourself with evangelical protestant bible literalists.
Yes, I agree, which is why it is so surprising that so many people, including apparently your good self, do seem to misunderstand him. I would suggest that you are setting up a very one-dimensional caricature of Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, dare I say even a straw man. I think as theologians reflect on the strengths of his writings, they are at the same time well aware of its weaknesses. There are many people in our Christian tradition who have made significant contributions to a deeper understanding of certain aspects of our faith while perhaps making errors in other respects.
But if you are simply taking a general anti-evolution position, then that is clearly not part of Catholic doctrine, and you are aligning yourself with evangelical protestant bible literalists.
6John5918
>5 brone: This post is influenced by Dietrich Von Hildebrand
Might it not be more accurate to say this post is copied from websites such as The Primacy of Christ or Tradition and Sanity? I believe it's always good to cite the source so everyone can read the entire text rather than selected quotes from it.
But I continue to be confused by your constant attacks on Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Pope Francis (I presume that's what "PF" refers to). As far as I am aware there has been no perfect human being since Jesus himself, and theologians are well aware of the weaknesses in Teilhard de Chardin's work, as well as its strengths. He provided some important theological insights which theologians and bishops (including popes) find useful, and some other material which has been adjudged mistaken and unhelpful - although if theology is "faith seeking understanding", it is useful even to consider such "errors" in order to deepen our understanding of the truth. To use an old English proverb, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't reject St Augustine because he was a Manichaean dualist, and likewise we don't reject Teilhard de Chardin because theology has moved beyond some aspects of his work.
Might it not be more accurate to say this post is copied from websites such as The Primacy of Christ or Tradition and Sanity? I believe it's always good to cite the source so everyone can read the entire text rather than selected quotes from it.
But I continue to be confused by your constant attacks on Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Pope Francis (I presume that's what "PF" refers to). As far as I am aware there has been no perfect human being since Jesus himself, and theologians are well aware of the weaknesses in Teilhard de Chardin's work, as well as its strengths. He provided some important theological insights which theologians and bishops (including popes) find useful, and some other material which has been adjudged mistaken and unhelpful - although if theology is "faith seeking understanding", it is useful even to consider such "errors" in order to deepen our understanding of the truth. To use an old English proverb, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't reject St Augustine because he was a Manichaean dualist, and likewise we don't reject Teilhard de Chardin because theology has moved beyond some aspects of his work.
8John5918
>7 brone:
Well yes, actually it is a waste of my time seeking the original sources of the partial quotes that you post, but I do it because I try to respect your posts and to get a deeper understanding of where you're coming from. The easiest way to avoid this waste of time would be for you simply to cite your sources so we can all read them without having to do any amateur detective work.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "gaslighting", but I've always been taught that asking a question is politer and less confrontational than making a firm statement which might prove to be wrong. A question seeks understanding rather than creating a zero sum right/wrong dynamic.
Well yes, actually it is a waste of my time seeking the original sources of the partial quotes that you post, but I do it because I try to respect your posts and to get a deeper understanding of where you're coming from. The easiest way to avoid this waste of time would be for you simply to cite your sources so we can all read them without having to do any amateur detective work.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "gaslighting", but I've always been taught that asking a question is politer and less confrontational than making a firm statement which might prove to be wrong. A question seeks understanding rather than creating a zero sum right/wrong dynamic.
10John5918
>9 brone:
Interesting comment. I hadn't thought in terms of "followers" of Teilhard. I rather think that theologians simply build upon the work of many of their predecessors, of whom Teilhard is but one. I presume his texts are indeed amongst many texts by many theologians which would be standard reading for today's theologians. If I were to identify anyone of whom Pope Francis could be said to be a "follower", I would immediately think of St Francis of Assisi rather than Teilhard. I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "his followers put no emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin" - can you help us with an example? As far as I know Original Sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine.
Interesting comment. I hadn't thought in terms of "followers" of Teilhard. I rather think that theologians simply build upon the work of many of their predecessors, of whom Teilhard is but one. I presume his texts are indeed amongst many texts by many theologians which would be standard reading for today's theologians. If I were to identify anyone of whom Pope Francis could be said to be a "follower", I would immediately think of St Francis of Assisi rather than Teilhard. I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "his followers put no emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin" - can you help us with an example? As far as I know Original Sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine.
13John5918
>11 brone: if you had not used the word still I would agree with you. Original Sin is an important part of Catholic doctrine
Well, you are the one who suggested in >9 brone: that there are some Catholics who "put no emphasis on Original Sin". I am using the word "still" only to suggest to you that you are misguided there, as Original Sin is indeed an important part of Catholic doctrine. Having said that, the Church's understanding of Original Sin has certainly deepened since the doctrine was first developed, as with all doctrines.
>12 brone: We believe that man is immaculate, innocent from birth and that it is the environment" that corrupts him
Is that what you believe? Who is "we"? And do you believe the same of woman? I think you're failing to put emphasis on Original Sin there.
I'd never heard of your friend, but if you're going to copy and paste from his work it would be helpful (as well as courteous to both him and us) to cite a reference so we can read the full text. But I've looked him up and he comes from the same area of London as me, so he must be a good bloke, like Billy Bragg. It's good to read that he renounced his membership of the white supremacist fascist National Front when he became a Catholic while in prison, a true conversion experience, and that he now espouses Catholic Social Teaching (although that's Catholic doctrine which all Catholics espouse, like you and me, isn't it?) and monarchism (well, the late Queen Elizabeth, Gawd bless 'er, was a decent old Christian, and Charles is pretty sound on the environment and the poor, as well as defending the role of faith in society; crowning an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state is certainly cheaper and arguably can produce better results than electing an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state in the election circuses in some of His Britannic Majesty's former colonies that spring to mind).
Well, you are the one who suggested in >9 brone: that there are some Catholics who "put no emphasis on Original Sin". I am using the word "still" only to suggest to you that you are misguided there, as Original Sin is indeed an important part of Catholic doctrine. Having said that, the Church's understanding of Original Sin has certainly deepened since the doctrine was first developed, as with all doctrines.
>12 brone: We believe that man is immaculate, innocent from birth and that it is the environment" that corrupts him
Is that what you believe? Who is "we"? And do you believe the same of woman? I think you're failing to put emphasis on Original Sin there.
I'd never heard of your friend, but if you're going to copy and paste from his work it would be helpful (as well as courteous to both him and us) to cite a reference so we can read the full text. But I've looked him up and he comes from the same area of London as me, so he must be a good bloke, like Billy Bragg. It's good to read that he renounced his membership of the white supremacist fascist National Front when he became a Catholic while in prison, a true conversion experience, and that he now espouses Catholic Social Teaching (although that's Catholic doctrine which all Catholics espouse, like you and me, isn't it?) and monarchism (well, the late Queen Elizabeth, Gawd bless 'er, was a decent old Christian, and Charles is pretty sound on the environment and the poor, as well as defending the role of faith in society; crowning an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state is certainly cheaper and arguably can produce better results than electing an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state in the election circuses in some of His Britannic Majesty's former colonies that spring to mind).
15NothingOutThereForMe
there are two different types of evolution, one where animals and things slowly adapt over time to fit survival needs without going into drastic changes where they'd be classified as a totally different species toda and the other a heresy where one thing becomes something else entirely over time like darwinism
16John5918
>15 NothingOutThereForMe:
In post #8 in a parallel thread in this group, you state, "Theology being the study of God and Science being the study of God's creation". I agree with you there. But in this post you appear to be contradicting yourself by using theology to reject scientific findings as a "heresy". Would you care to elaborate?
In post #8 in a parallel thread in this group, you state, "Theology being the study of God and Science being the study of God's creation". I agree with you there. But in this post you appear to be contradicting yourself by using theology to reject scientific findings as a "heresy". Would you care to elaborate?
17NothingOutThereForMe
>16 John5918: I'm saying not all evolution is heresy just some. and i'm not contradicting myself as the evolution of darwinism (theory) does not exist in the christian world view. MICROevolution is not heresy, while MACROevolution is believed to be cause...well reasons that contradict creationism and I AM
18John5918
>17 NothingOutThereForMe:
And yet scientific evidence is in favour of what you describe as macro evolution. What's more, most mainstream global Christian churches find no contradiction between theology and (macro) evolution. Most Christians do not subscribe to "creationism" and bible literalism, and see no contradiction between evolution and either theology or scripture properly understood.
And yet scientific evidence is in favour of what you describe as macro evolution. What's more, most mainstream global Christian churches find no contradiction between theology and (macro) evolution. Most Christians do not subscribe to "creationism" and bible literalism, and see no contradiction between evolution and either theology or scripture properly understood.
20John5918
>19 brone: The Church does teach that we can be open minded about evolution
Good. We're in agreement about that important bit. The rest appears to be a series of straw persons - current breed of evolutionists, favourite hipster, modern catholic intellectuals, progressives, theologians, and popes, Ga Ga, nerdy statements, etc.
Good. We're in agreement about that important bit. The rest appears to be a series of straw persons - current breed of evolutionists, favourite hipster, modern catholic intellectuals, progressives, theologians, and popes, Ga Ga, nerdy statements, etc.
22John5918
>21 brone:
Try not to guess the thoughts of other people, nor to make sweeping generalisations, especially when they have already clearly stated that they do not "totally" accept what a particular theologian has written.
Try not to guess the thoughts of other people, nor to make sweeping generalisations, especially when they have already clearly stated that they do not "totally" accept what a particular theologian has written.
23NothingOutThereForMe
>19 brone: yes, science gives us general revelations, and the Bible gives us special/divine Revelation. two of which should never contradict each other. I think you can be christian and believe in darwinian evolution but like all things you should have a reason ready to why you believe in such things.
I just watched a presbyterian youtube video of some guy explaining why evolution and the bible actually make sense together. (gotta say I was a bit blown back how much sense it made)
Link if you want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9IWx9TJ08&pp=ygUacmVkZWVtZWQgem9vbWVyIGV2b...
I just watched a presbyterian youtube video of some guy explaining why evolution and the bible actually make sense together. (gotta say I was a bit blown back how much sense it made)
Link if you want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9IWx9TJ08&pp=ygUacmVkZWVtZWQgem9vbWVyIGV2b...
24NothingOutThereForMe
And I don't see why it makes a difference. God was still involved 100% in the creation of mankind, Mankind sinned, God took it upon himself to come down and save mankind, and Gives them a choice. It's not how it starts its how it ends.
25John5918
>24 NothingOutThereForMe: And I don't see why it makes a difference. God was still involved 100% in the creation of mankind
Precisely. That's what the bible teaches us, and that's what we believe as Christians. What the bible doesn't teach us is how exactly God made that happen. For several thousand years during the pre-scientific era people tried to explain how it happened, and came up with various theories which made sense to them at the time. Since the dawn of the scientific era we have been able to come up with better and better theories which not only make sense but are supported by empirical evidence. Thanks be to God. The whole "creationism v evolution" debate promoted by a minority of Christians is a red herring.
Precisely. That's what the bible teaches us, and that's what we believe as Christians. What the bible doesn't teach us is how exactly God made that happen. For several thousand years during the pre-scientific era people tried to explain how it happened, and came up with various theories which made sense to them at the time. Since the dawn of the scientific era we have been able to come up with better and better theories which not only make sense but are supported by empirical evidence. Thanks be to God. The whole "creationism v evolution" debate promoted by a minority of Christians is a red herring.
26Moicah
>25 John5918: Hello! I'd like to ask a question, as well as state that the Bible does say how man was created. It says that man was created of the dust of the ground, and that God breathed the breath of life into him. Meaning that man was literally molded from the earth. Like clay. Now, my question: How could dinosaurs and other life forms have lived and died before man was created, since death only existed after the Fall of man?
27John5918
>26 Moicah:
Most Christians do not interpret the bible as a scientific textbook, they understand it as teaching faith (ie that God created everything) and leave it up to science to determine exactly how God achieved that. Even so, the bible places the creation of the animals (ie dinosaurs and other life forms) before humans. Humans are indeed made of phsyical material ("the dust of the ground") and God indeed breathes the breath of life into us, but through the mechanisms which science has demonstrated.
Most Christians do not interpret the bible as a scientific textbook, they understand it as teaching faith (ie that God created everything) and leave it up to science to determine exactly how God achieved that. Even so, the bible places the creation of the animals (ie dinosaurs and other life forms) before humans. Humans are indeed made of phsyical material ("the dust of the ground") and God indeed breathes the breath of life into us, but through the mechanisms which science has demonstrated.
28Moicah
>27 John5918: Right, but evolution states that a cataclysm happened which caused the dinosaurs to go extinct (Metorite/asteroid). Like I said, this couldn't have happened - the death of anything at all - before Adam and Eve sinned; creating death.
29John5918
>28 Moicah:
Well, first of all I would say that it is not "evolution" which tells us that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a cataclysmic event - it is history, science, palaeontology, the fossil record and other types of evidence.
Is the "death" that was caused by human sin, the alienation that occurred between God and humankind, the same physical death that all animals experience, or is it a more spiritual death? Is there not more than one way of interpreting these passages in the bible?
Well, first of all I would say that it is not "evolution" which tells us that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a cataclysmic event - it is history, science, palaeontology, the fossil record and other types of evidence.
Is the "death" that was caused by human sin, the alienation that occurred between God and humankind, the same physical death that all animals experience, or is it a more spiritual death? Is there not more than one way of interpreting these passages in the bible?
30Moicah
>29 John5918:
Okay, I will admit my fault in saying that evolution claims an extinction, but evolution's timeline does commonly lead to an extinction cataclysm, and that was what I was trying to say.
Now, I believe that the kind of death that the Bible is referring to is not a spiritual death, because the Bible explicitly defines that death as a physical death. Now spiritual death does exist, and it is when someone dies in their sin. Also, the Bible should not be open for interpretation, since that leaves room for one to define the Bible for themselves.
Okay, I will admit my fault in saying that evolution claims an extinction, but evolution's timeline does commonly lead to an extinction cataclysm, and that was what I was trying to say.
Now, I believe that the kind of death that the Bible is referring to is not a spiritual death, because the Bible explicitly defines that death as a physical death. Now spiritual death does exist, and it is when someone dies in their sin. Also, the Bible should not be open for interpretation, since that leaves room for one to define the Bible for themselves.
31NothingOutThereForMe
>26 Moicah: Death did in fact exist before the fall of man. How do we know this? God tells adam and eve Not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and there was another tree. The tree of life, Why would there be a Tree of Life if Death was something that didn't already exist. Man was created from the dust of the ground and there shall he return, It's talking about Mankind's physical being. when we die we decay and become soil for compost
and God Breathing the breathe of life into the first man Can be said God was giving mankind A Soul, A soul is what differentiates us from animals. Adam could have indeed been a animal at one point God Chose and Gave A soul making him the first of Mankind, Letting him rule over the other beasts of the earth. and When the bible talks about Death there are two types of Death it could be referring to A spiritual death and a physical death.
And the bible isn't specific of how long adam and eve were in eden, we just know what age they were when they died.
and God Breathing the breathe of life into the first man Can be said God was giving mankind A Soul, A soul is what differentiates us from animals. Adam could have indeed been a animal at one point God Chose and Gave A soul making him the first of Mankind, Letting him rule over the other beasts of the earth. and When the bible talks about Death there are two types of Death it could be referring to A spiritual death and a physical death.
And the bible isn't specific of how long adam and eve were in eden, we just know what age they were when they died.
33Moicah
>31 NothingOutThereForMe: Mmm. Though, how exactly does there being a tree of Life force death to exist? Life can exist without death, and that was how it was meant to be in the beginning.
Also, after reviewing the scriptures, I saw that the animals were created after Adam. As well as the fact that the earth was created in 7 days. I wonder; how does evolution fit into those seven days? The Bible says;
"Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
God formed MAN from the dust of the ground, breathed the breath of life, and MAN became a living soul. God did not place a soul within an animal, he created man and gave him life right then.
Also, after reviewing the scriptures, I saw that the animals were created after Adam. As well as the fact that the earth was created in 7 days. I wonder; how does evolution fit into those seven days? The Bible says;
"Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
God formed MAN from the dust of the ground, breathed the breath of life, and MAN became a living soul. God did not place a soul within an animal, he created man and gave him life right then.
34John5918
>33 Moicah: after reviewing the scriptures, I saw that the animals were created after Adam
That depends on which of the two creation stories you read. In the first creation story in Genesis 1, God first creates "great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species" on the fifth day (Gen 1:21). Then on the sixth day "God said, 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was. God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good", and then finally "God said, 'Let us make human beings in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground'" (Gen 1:24-26). In the second creation story in Genesis 2, you are correct that God created animals and birds (Gen 2:19) after creating human beings (Gen 2:7).
Consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature, and the two accounts by two different authors (the first Priestly, the second Yahwist) woven together by a later author/compiler/editor can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory.
That depends on which of the two creation stories you read. In the first creation story in Genesis 1, God first creates "great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species" on the fifth day (Gen 1:21). Then on the sixth day "God said, 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was. God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good", and then finally "God said, 'Let us make human beings in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground'" (Gen 1:24-26). In the second creation story in Genesis 2, you are correct that God created animals and birds (Gen 2:19) after creating human beings (Gen 2:7).
Consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature, and the two accounts by two different authors (the first Priestly, the second Yahwist) woven together by a later author/compiler/editor can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory.
35NothingOutThereForMe
>33 Moicah: when has life ever existed without death other than the time God himself made it so?, Book of revelations God giving believers new indestructible bodies, Jesus rising from the dead, ect. And God never says creation is/was perfect when he was done making the universe, all he says is that it was 'Good' he saw that it was adequate Not perfect by any means. Suggesting the idea of it not being a perfect world. A Perfect World is where man is closest to God which is heaven where Death does not dwell. further evidence of this is the fact satan exists and God allows him power into the garden.
As for the creation of man from what science has told us and What the bible tells us there can be no contradiction. Either we have misinterpreted the evidence that science has presented to us, or misinterpreted scripture.
the fact of the matter is, is you need to believe in a biblical adam and eve in the christian worldview.
As for the creation of man from what science has told us and What the bible tells us there can be no contradiction. Either we have misinterpreted the evidence that science has presented to us, or misinterpreted scripture.
the fact of the matter is, is you need to believe in a biblical adam and eve in the christian worldview.
36John5918
>35 NothingOutThereForMe: the fact of the matter is, is you need to believe in a biblical adam and eve in the christian worldview
Yes, we believe in a biblical Adam and Eve, but do we have to believe in them in a literal sense or a symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical sense? The bible is full of parables which teach truths which are not the literal meaning of the words!
Yes, we believe in a biblical Adam and Eve, but do we have to believe in them in a literal sense or a symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical sense? The bible is full of parables which teach truths which are not the literal meaning of the words!
37NothingOutThereForMe
also where do you think neanderthals and denisovans play in all this? (that is of course if you think they ever existed) remnants from the tower of babel? perhaps a part of the surviving line of noah after the flood?
38NothingOutThereForMe
>36 John5918: as far as Adam and eve (the two humans) go I'd say literal sense since they started man's depravity.
39John5918
>38 NothingOutThereForMe:
There we disagree. I believe they are a symbol, an archetype perhaps, of humankind's alienation from God, an alienation which has continued in all of us.
There we disagree. I believe they are a symbol, an archetype perhaps, of humankind's alienation from God, an alienation which has continued in all of us.
40NothingOutThereForMe
>39 John5918: why can't they be both? Adam and eve were real people who represented man's depravity
41John5918
>40 NothingOutThereForMe:
Well, they are archetypes of real early human beings, but for me it doesn't necessarily have to be two people called Adam and Eve. The message being taught by the bible is the same, whichever way one views it; the point of the story is humankind's alienation from God, what you call depravity.
Well, they are archetypes of real early human beings, but for me it doesn't necessarily have to be two people called Adam and Eve. The message being taught by the bible is the same, whichever way one views it; the point of the story is humankind's alienation from God, what you call depravity.
42NothingOutThereForMe
Theistic evolution is what christians believe, or better yet should believe. Am I wrong?
or you can be agnostic about it, doesn't really change anything.
or you can be agnostic about it, doesn't really change anything.
43John5918
>42 NothingOutThereForMe: Theistic evolution
Not a term I'm familiar with, but Wikipedia tells me it's a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature, that the concept of God is compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution, that evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God. I can live with that. The biblical point is that God created everything, but the bible is not a science textbook telling is in detail how God did so. That's what science is for, and thus science is also of God.
Not a term I'm familiar with, but Wikipedia tells me it's a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature, that the concept of God is compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution, that evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God. I can live with that. The biblical point is that God created everything, but the bible is not a science textbook telling is in detail how God did so. That's what science is for, and thus science is also of God.
47John5918
Not really connected with evolution in the general sense of the word, but in terms of the evolution of our understanding of evangelisation and how to go about it, this article might be of interest. It does contain the word "evolution".
Pauline Sisters in Africa Unveil Restyled Logos “to stay relevant in a dynamic world” (ACI Africa)
These sisters are making a tremendous contribution to the work of evangelisation through both traditional print media and online and audiovisual media. They are also attracting new vocations, with many bright and vibrant young women joining them. I was at the launch descibed in the article, and in fact I was one of the speakers, as they have published all of my recent books on the Church in Sudan and South Sudan.
Pauline Sisters in Africa Unveil Restyled Logos “to stay relevant in a dynamic world” (ACI Africa)
Members of the Pious Society of the Daughters of St. Paul (FSP/Pauline Sisters) in Africa have unveiled their newly restyled logo in recognition of the changes that have come with the signs of the times. In her remarks during the restyled logo launch event on Friday, March 8 in Nairobi, the Directress of Paulines Publications Africa (PPA) said that the updating of the logo is part of FSP members recognition of “the essence of values and constant commitment to evangelization.” “Our new institutional logo and restyled trademark are not just a visual change, but a symbol of our evolution and adaptability,” Sr. Praxides Nafula said during the event that took place at the Daughters of St. Paul Chapel in Westlands, Nairobi. Sr. Praxides added, “We understand the need to stay relevant in a dynamic world, while remaining true to our core values: study, apostolate, piety, and poverty.” “Our dedication to dogma, morals, and liturgy – living and giving Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, just like St. Paul – remains at the heart of everything we do”...
These sisters are making a tremendous contribution to the work of evangelisation through both traditional print media and online and audiovisual media. They are also attracting new vocations, with many bright and vibrant young women joining them. I was at the launch descibed in the article, and in fact I was one of the speakers, as they have published all of my recent books on the Church in Sudan and South Sudan.
482wonderY
Gerald Schroeder does an interesting interpretation of the Old Testament using other Hebraic texts to assist.
The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang do a remarkable job of integrating science and theology. His explanation of ‘cosmic proper time’ is especially enlightening.
The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang do a remarkable job of integrating science and theology. His explanation of ‘cosmic proper time’ is especially enlightening.
50John5918
>49 brone:
It really would be helpful if you would attribute direct quotes such as this one from Pope St John Paul II in 1985 (link). The good pope is of course correct. The existence of God can never be proven or disproved by scientific means, just as the physical methodology by which God created the universe can never be discovered by theology. Science and theology complement each other by answering different questions.
It really would be helpful if you would attribute direct quotes such as this one from Pope St John Paul II in 1985 (link). The good pope is of course correct. The existence of God can never be proven or disproved by scientific means, just as the physical methodology by which God created the universe can never be discovered by theology. Science and theology complement each other by answering different questions.
53John5918
>52 brone:
Interestingly the late US Catholic theologian Fr Thomas Berry, who specialised in creation spirituality, used to avoid the term "Big Bang" as it seemed too negative and final. He preferred to speak of the "Flaring Forth" of creation, which gives more of a sense of creativity, growth, beginnings, openness, optimism and evolution.
Interestingly the late US Catholic theologian Fr Thomas Berry, who specialised in creation spirituality, used to avoid the term "Big Bang" as it seemed too negative and final. He preferred to speak of the "Flaring Forth" of creation, which gives more of a sense of creativity, growth, beginnings, openness, optimism and evolution.
54brone
So striking is the contrast between man and ape that man could not possibly have evolved from the ape. The contrast is that man has a soul endowed with free will, which the ape has not.This is abundantly clear by the fact that man, by means of thought and reflection advances from one invention to the next, while the ape does what all animals do, he follows his instincts even in rudimentary degrees he has not learned to do any more than his ancestors have always done. We know the earth has been ransacked and every rock has been turned over and occasionally some good ole boys play a practicle joke on some dreamy scientist and dress up in a monkey costume and flash a documentory crew here and there. But the missing link the droped tail has not been found yet. If Darwin's theory of infinitesimal variations covering enormous periods of time were correct an Ape-Man skeleton would be hanging in every 101 Anatomy class....AMDG.....
55brone
Since the great Malachi Martin was brought up in another post. Martin is famous for his opposition to Tielhardian heresy and humanism, Matin was dispensed from all his vows (properly) except Chastity. He was also an advisor to Roncali. Tielhardian, Jesuit, and Papal thought these days is that of the evolution thiests which in my humble interpretation is bassically, these guys date everything to the temote beginnings of some sort of primeval alphabet soup containing a mixture of lifeless chemicals this all happened according to these rocket scientists some ancient morning a gazillion and a half years ago. Now a couple of zillion years later after this soup simmerd some how out of the crock pot jumps a Homo Sapien without a tale ready to go. These scientists, scholars, Papal posses, as well as our beloved progressive Catholics believe they are what Martin called them "brothers of the boulder". Tielhard was an unbeliever whose attitude was being "modern" or modernist became the normal way of thinking for all unbelievers in the West. These Cinos see all sort of "goodies" for mankind it would be quite an accomplishment itf Bergoglio, Tucho, Roch, Cupich, Wilson could only get us regular Mass going Catholics to change, but a certain stubborn resistance to this same old "modernist" change presents such an obstacle to Bergoglio and his minions. They are surprised by their own Roman Catholic Church where the creators of the obstacles are. How goofy these guys really are. They cannot with all their power unseat popular belief and attachment to the traditional religion. This Pontificate has become tiring, boring, repetitious, it lacks energy, and for all the this and that spouted in this or that document they suffer from uninventiveness, sameness and monotony. They are in a constant state of siege mentality, and spasmic reactions to criticisms and dubias. They are boring because they participate in the "new age" always refuting, covering up scandals and make friend with their enemies while cancelling and ridiculing their own. If the modernism of this pope and his cronies is accepted the the back of the Roman Church will be broken. It will however be the Roman Catholic Church of annother pope who will fight for fixed dogma and belief and be tied irrevocablly to the tradition of a pontif who as Vicar of Christ who ives in a small enclave on the banks of the Tiber, from there he authoritatively claims truths about belief and morality....AMDG....
56John5918
>55 brone:
You've made it clear that you don't accept the scentific explanation for the creation of human beings. Would you care to tell us how you believe the universe, the world and humanity came about? There is a great deal of concrete scientific evidence floating around; how do you interpret it?
Interesting that you here accuse the Church of "uninventiveness, sameness and monotony", whereas in many of your posts you reject anything which smacks of inventiveness, change and creativity.
What's "Cinos", incidentally? That's a (presumably pejorative) one that I've never heard before.
You've made it clear that you don't accept the scentific explanation for the creation of human beings. Would you care to tell us how you believe the universe, the world and humanity came about? There is a great deal of concrete scientific evidence floating around; how do you interpret it?
Interesting that you here accuse the Church of "uninventiveness, sameness and monotony", whereas in many of your posts you reject anything which smacks of inventiveness, change and creativity.
What's "Cinos", incidentally? That's a (presumably pejorative) one that I've never heard before.
57brone
>56 John5918: If you don't know what a "CINO" is how do you know it is pejorative and not an approbation the implication is since "I never heard of it before" and you (brone) posted it, it is "presumably pejorative". This is whats known as gaslighting....AMDG....
58John5918
>57 brone:
No, the context in which you use it suggests it is a pejorative. Maybe I'm mistaken, but either way it would be so easy if you were just to explain what it means. Why are you so unhelpful to fellow posters (and fellow Christians)?
No, the context in which you use it suggests it is a pejorative. Maybe I'm mistaken, but either way it would be so easy if you were just to explain what it means. Why are you so unhelpful to fellow posters (and fellow Christians)?
59brone
I see I get on your nerves a cino is no big thing don't lose sleep over it. Someone will tell you its rather a well known Acronym. Meanwhile lets get back to our real disagreements and join in the lists. Yourself, most intellectuals and most of the hierarchal church have been infected by the plague of modernism which combines progress in science in a new twist with biblical studies. Darwinism which is still a huge vogue with Jesuits and their obsequious minions. Those of us with God given intellect would call this plague out for what it is. Simply without 12,000 words youse guys believe that supernatural revelation and knowledge must not only look reasonable to stay with the "spirit of the age", it must be reasonable, futher lay guy interpretation would be if a conflict of ideas arises between church teaching and science the church should then modify or as youse guys would really like would be to do away with the conflicting teaching. IDC much about evolution but the evolution of Teilhard is heretical and a manifestation of Modernism on par with Arianism and Pelegianism, Tielhard like Bergogolio and J 5918 basic balliwick is all religions change to make men progress and become better humanitarians, The Jesuits actually condemned this heresy in the late 19th century. Since Vatll and even before the Jebbies have been leading this Teilhardian assault on the Church. Teilhard famously prophesised "It may be that despite all appearancs the old ecclesiastical edifice is going to one day tumble down" Father Teihaard de Chardin was a prominant member of these heretics and his protégés in Rome are "trying" to fulfill his prophesy. Teilhard, Tucho, Bergoglio J5918 all believe the modernist heresy of Tiehard that " those notions will ultimately prevail. That the hypotheses of scientists concerning the origins of man determine what Catholics should believe and " that thse notions will ulltimetly prevail for we alone are truly active and capable of communicating their thought since we alone have adapted to the new method" no wonder Pius exiled this guy to Timbucto....AMDG...
61John5918
>59 brone:
I would disagree with most of what you have written there. There is no conflict between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the currently accepted (and constantly evolving) scientific explanations of evolution. The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theories of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. Catholic teaching holds that God initiated and continued the process of God's creation, but does not describe how that process worked. Theology and science ask and answer different questions, the former "why?" and the latter "how"?
See, for example, Contrary to Popular Belief: The Catholic Church Has No Quarrel With Evolution and Never Condemned It. This article quotes a saint whom you often refer to approvingly, John Henry Newman, who wrote in the 1860s, "I see nothing in the theory of evolution inconsistent with an Almighty Creator and Protector... Mr. Darwin’s theory need not, then, be atheistical . . . it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine Prescience and Skill". And as G K Chesterton wrote in 1908, "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox. For a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time." Evolution glorifies God rather than the opposite, and fundamental Church teaching is not changed, although our understanding of our faith may be expanded and deepened by new insights, "a larger idea", as Newman says.
I would disagree with most of what you have written there. There is no conflict between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the currently accepted (and constantly evolving) scientific explanations of evolution. The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theories of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. Catholic teaching holds that God initiated and continued the process of God's creation, but does not describe how that process worked. Theology and science ask and answer different questions, the former "why?" and the latter "how"?
See, for example, Contrary to Popular Belief: The Catholic Church Has No Quarrel With Evolution and Never Condemned It. This article quotes a saint whom you often refer to approvingly, John Henry Newman, who wrote in the 1860s, "I see nothing in the theory of evolution inconsistent with an Almighty Creator and Protector... Mr. Darwin’s theory need not, then, be atheistical . . . it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine Prescience and Skill". And as G K Chesterton wrote in 1908, "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox. For a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time." Evolution glorifies God rather than the opposite, and fundamental Church teaching is not changed, although our understanding of our faith may be expanded and deepened by new insights, "a larger idea", as Newman says.
62John5918
>60 sqdancer:
Thanks for reminding us that this is an international forum and what is well known to one might not be to others. I suppose I could write in my own native Cockney slang, but then the rabbit would be in a right old two and eight. No Barney, I'm only 'aving a Turkish. I should bleedin' coco!
Thanks for reminding us that this is an international forum and what is well known to one might not be to others. I suppose I could write in my own native Cockney slang, but then the rabbit would be in a right old two and eight. No Barney, I'm only 'aving a Turkish. I should bleedin' coco!
63brone
>61 John5918: What all evolutionists believe is that the church is a passing phase in the ongoing religious process. This is a lethal argument for the Catholic Faith if accepted. A perfect expression of Modernism condemed by more than one of the Pius's. The question is what makes a Catholic? The evolutionist, progressive, Modernist do not believe in this or that dogmas, Catholics do. Evolutionists believe in Community as the outgrowth of the apostolic mission. As the ages come and go these Darwinists will have to invent new formulas that reflect only one phrase of the growth of the spirit of humanity. A few years from now a new formula must be invented will they still call the new invention evolution and still believe itself. Therefore changing what in the last age was the true religious process, one thing for sure the new invention will have no intellectual proof, no dogma given to us by God for permanent assent. Evolution gives us merely a modern "way of life". So evolutionsts should reconsider what is your belief evolving into a formula that all dogmas or churchmen have no authority for individuals than the formulas of scientists about anthrpology or atoms or history they all change because they all progress as humanity progresses, In my opinion of my reading Newman or Chesterton they would have none of this....AMDG....
