by everchangingworld 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It didn't take the RCC that long to embrace Evolution.
The RCC neither embraces nor rejects evolution. There is no official position Catholics must subscribe to. As a Catholic you are free to accept it or not. That said, most RCC members in the U.S. appear to. When I took Catechism classes we had a session on the subject, and our teacher was a geneticist from the local Catholic U.
NewChapter, I think your question is valid and has not been answered as well.
Also, I think he was meaning 1950 - 1859 = 91 (~100) years. not 2012-1950. Not that it matters much.
Also, I think he was meaning 1950 - 1859 = 91 (~100) years. not 2012-1950. Not that it matters much.
Even in 1859 the Church did not require a literal reading of Genesis. By then it was known that the Earth was far more ancient than what a literal reading teaches. Heck, even back in the 4th Century prominent Catholics like Augustine were arguing against a literal reading of the text (and Augustine wrote about a proto sort of evolution by which species can change and the Universe develops graudally over time).
The RCC neither embraces nor rejects evolution. There is no official position Catholics must subscribe to. As a Catholic you are free to accept it or not. That said, most RCC members in the U.S. appear to. When I took Catechism classes we had a session on the subject, and our teacher was a geneticist from the local Catholic U.
In the 1950 encyclicalHumani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
In regards to the oficial position of the vatican:
159Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." 37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." 38
Hey Newchapter,
So as an atheist, do you believe spirits exist? Not categorizing them as "good or bad" spirits, but spirits none the less.
This has no sneaky hidden agenda, just wondering.
Kevun, no I don't believe spirits exist. If evidence ever presents, I will take another look at the issue, but at this point, I think probability is almost nonexistent that it will ever happen.
I don't believe in demons, gods, angels, magic, astrology, ghosts, pyschics, faith healing, or anything along those lines. I think that atheists also experience emotions that a believer may call spiritual, but since atheists also experience such emotions, then I have to conclude that it has nothing to with the spiritual but must be some universal emotions that humans feel, and some will claim it is a god.
PSac, good info, but it does not contradict what I said.
NC, I can offer a couple of those ideas that I tried to speak of earlier.
(I don't know all the proper names of the different stages of evolution, so I'm gonna be general, and you can fill in the blanks with proper terminology)
Everything is a spirit. Homo (whatever) reaches a certain point in evolution where he/his spirit begins to seek out/yearn for THE Spirit. For his Creator (because his spirit calls to THE spirit, even though he knows less than he 'feels'). His journey throughout history is him learning and seeking a bit more and more. But he was never soul-less. He was always a soul/spirit, within his flesh.
(this doesn't really take a biblically literal Adam/Eve into account)
or
God formed man from the earth... (doesn't have to mean at once... could mean the evolution of man was the process of God forming him)... and at some point God breathed the spirit/life into the formed man - giving man (and woman) life - and bringing them into the 'spiritual' (which could be more within/another realm that one can access as a spirit, rather than a physical place 'without')... and from there the same choices were made as in the 'garden' (not literally as told, because the physical is merely a reflection of the spiritual... a representation of a deeper meaning)... and man continued on his path.
The above aren't bad, imo... based on what we know right now. But there are so many puzzle pieces that we don't yet have.
I understand that the spiritual came first. That there was no barrier between the phsyical and the spiritual... until after the fall. Since the rest of creation had been given to Adam/Eve to govern (not dominate), means - to me- that the creation followed in the path that those governing them chose. How does this... and evolution... fit together? I dont know, as stated. The timing is off, at least as we understand things. I am sure we are missing other puzzle pieces as from the physical understanding as well as the spiritual, that would shed more light on evolution and on creation.
So I do not think that this lack of knowing is because there is no answer. I think that this lack of knowing is because we cannot understand the answer. We cannot receive it... at least not in full. It would be like trying to teach calculus to someone who has not even learned how to count. We need building blocks to understand some things, even just in the physical world. So how much more so in a realm that we cannot study and measure as we can the physical? Even Christ said that we do not even understand the physical... how can we begin to understand what He would teach as to the spiritual?
We cannot learn faster than we are ready to learn.
Peace,
tammy
Do I understand this correctly?
You say that humans were spirit, and after the 'fell' they were given animal skins, which for you, translates into a physical human body. (I'm referencing other posts I've seen you make.)
Satan was also a spirit, and he also 'fell'. Why was his spirit also not trapped in a body?
Of course, there are a lot of holes in your theory, and it is not logical in the context of Evolution. But since you know that, I'll leave it. I'm interested in the Satan question now.
Interesting that you go with this narrative, and an opposite narrative was brought out that Angels started with physical bodies and evolved into spiritual bodies. No evidence of this in the fossil record, but some accept it anyway.
It does give the impression that everybody just makes up a story to bring evolution and creation into line with each other.
NC why is a fall not logical in the context of evolution? For example if we take evolution to turn on the survival of the fittest, and if the fittest denotes what is most fit for its environment, then there must also be an awareness that the best, the most able bodied, the most gifted in human terms often have to die becasuse evolution does not select according to human paramaters. Thus the fall may signify, in anthropology for example, such losses from higher to lower in humanly understandable terms. just putting this out there for discussion. (edit: I'm not trying to have a go at you personally)
another thing evolution favours variety and homogeneity doesn't it? of course it does. so from this perspective a fall for humans and a fall for a figure like satan may have different outcomes.
edit: the fossil record is very useful and yes I agee that if something is backed up by material evidence that is undeniable then one can debunk fallacious totalising reasoning from organisations like the WTS but on the other arguing from absence of evidence to make one's own totalising negation is pretty shaky.
edit 2: okay in re-reading your post,NC I see that you were not making a totalising negation but were asking questions of other people and then sharing an impression. but I hope my reasoning does challenge that impression.
