Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[1213]

Yeah, "might makes right". Totally. Just ask Kim Jung Un.

I don't say "might makes right". Things are not right just because of might. It is just so that a person who gives a gift, has also right to decide what kind of gift he gives.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't say "might makes right". Things are not right just because of might. It is just so that a person who gives a gift, has also right to decide what kind of gift he gives.

Whatever god says is good, is good, right?
Whatever god says is bad, is bad, right?
What happens if you don't do what God wants?

 

[metis]

I don't say "might makes right". Things are not right just because of might. It is just so that a person who gives a gift, has also right to decide what kind of gift he gives.

Taxation is not a "gift"-- it's a necessity if any society wants to actually survive without breaking into civil war and greed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is just so that a person who gives a gift, has also right to decide what kind of gift he gives.

Except in this analogy, it is not about deciding the kind of gift. It is deciding to revoke the gift and take it back.

But it's a false analogy off course. What you are really talking about is moral bankrupcy

 

[1213]

Except in this analogy, it is not about deciding the kind of gift. It is deciding to revoke the gift and take it back.

If you get for example 25550 days, no one is going to take them back. You can keep them. If you don't get more days, it does not mean the previous ones are taken back.

 

[1213]

Taxation is not a "gift"-- it's a necessity if any society wants to actually survive without breaking into civil war and greed.

I disagree with that. And I think world is already ruled by greed. Extremely heavy taxation is one evidence for it.

Pro taxes people reminds me of this:

 

[1213]

Whatever god says is good, is good, right?

I think so, but it is not so because God says so, but because He really knows what is good. One doesn't have to accept it just because it is said by God.

 

[Audie]

I don't say "might makes right". Things are not right just because of might. It is just so that a person who gives a gift, has also right to decide what kind of gift he gives.

With "god" might is exactly what makes right.

As for " gifts"? Something you don't want and
cannot refuse...will receive the most hideous punishment
beyond imagination if you don't receive it with limitless gratitude...you call that a GIFT!!??

 

[Audie]

I think so, but it is not so because God says so, but because He really knows what is good. One doesn't have to accept it just because it is said by God.

Of course "god" knows. It's his invention, his
definition. In your story anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you get for example 25550 days, no one is going to take them back. You can keep them. If you don't get more days, it does not mean the previous ones are taken back.

So free will doesn't exist?

If I commit suicide at age 20, then that means that even before I was born, your god decided I would get only 20 years?
My decision to commit suicide thus wasn't really "my" decision? It was destined to be so?

If I decide to smoke and get cancer at 50 and die, then there was nothing I could do about it?
Wheter I decided to smoke or not, makes no difference? I'ld still die at 50?

If a drunk driver kills a 5-year old, it isn't the responsability of the drunk drive?
It just means that god decided the kid only gets 5 years and the means to end that kids life just happens to be the drunk driver because that was what your god decided?

Mass shootings, genetic defects, bombs, virusses, bacterial infections, accidents, ..... all of it is pre-determined?

You should think things through before inventing them on the spot, it seems to me.

 

[wellwisher]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

The best way to look at Adam and Eve, that is consistent with both Science and the Bible, is to firs consider two innovations, that science has carbon dated, as being in the same time scale as the bible dating of Adam and Eve. These are the invention of written language and the appearance of the first sustainable civilization. Once civilization stuck, this was a milestone for humans; new era, where natural selection is locally replaced by man made selection. Nature is developed by man, altering the natural environment that humans had once lived in.

This POV does not deny evolution. What it does is create a side branch; about 6000 years ago, in terms of human evolution, where the natural environment for natural selection, is altered by the man made environment of civilization. Humans become less natural, due to the man made pressures and the man made selections. For example, farming was not natural to the migratory humans but key to civilization. That is the fall from paradise; loss of nature. The main trigger was knowledge of good and evil, which is law, in light of the invention of written language.

Consider going to school at a time when there is no written language. You have spoken language, but you cannot read, record or study with blackboards, books and notes. You have to depend on the lecturer and your own memory. It won't take long, before you forget, overlook or embellish what you think you heard in a one hour lecture. Even in group study, there will be difference of opinion based on what each person thought they selectively heard.

Once written language appears, mental clarity appears, since hard memory can now be stored outside you, on paper or stone, allowing you to refresh your memory at any time in the future. This was critical for civilization. It was needed for commerce so people are not arguing over verbal contracts. It was useful for early science to record observations. It was useful for creating a manual needed for the logistics of sustainable culture, etc. Written language was critical for sustainable civilization. Science can show that civilizations had formed previous to this time, but these were not sustainable but all aborted. Once the innovators who formed these earlier civilization passed, verbal transfer alone was not sufficient for the next generation to sustain it; forget important details.

The problem with written language, that would change the path of humans, was its application to law or knowledge of good and evil. Before written language, humans would create laws, rules and guidelines, but these would change with time and need; fluid natural memory.

Written language created a way to allow obsolete law, rules and guidelines, to linger in time, way beyond their natural need. This meant that outdated law, once carved to stone, could remain forever, no longer allowing people to advance and adapt in a natural way. This created a repression of the natural mind; tree of life is taken away, and a new type of human appears in terms of the brain's operating system. Adam and Eve symbolize this new type of human, that diverges from natural selection, making selections around lingering knowledge of good and evil.

A good example of how written knowledge can linger in time are the Holy Books of all the world religions. Many of these are thousands of years old. They perpetuate the past and create it anew for each generation, well into the future. Through man made selection, this has had an impact on the operating system of the human brain; new type of human who is not exactly natural. Adam and Eve were on the ground floor of this change.

Adam, by tradition, was good at math and science. He gets to name and catalog all the animals; write them down. This use of the invention was OK. It appears Eve had the idea to write down laws and rules. Unlike science records that build a platform for advancement, the knowledge of good and evil platform, would amplify both good and evil, since one implies the other. Adam and Eve were a couple of nerds changing the course of history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think so, but it is not so because God says so, but because He really knows what is good. One doesn't have to accept it just because it is said by God.

You only cited and answered one of my three questions. How come?

So whatever god says is good, is good, because god "really knows what is good."


So slavery is good.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

​

​Murdering one's own child is good.

Genesis 22:1-12
22 After these things God decided to test Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Yes!”

2 Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.”

3 In the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. He cut the wood for the sacrifice. Then they went to the place where God told them to go. 4 After they traveled three days, Abraham looked up, and in the distance he saw the place where they were going. 5 Then he said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go to that place and worship. Then we will come back to you later.”

6 Abraham took the wood for the sacrifice and put it on his son’s shoulder. Abraham took the special knife and fire. Then both he and his son went together to the place for worship.

7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!”

Abraham answered, “Yes, son?”

Isaac said, “I see the wood and the fire. But where is the lamb we will burn as a sacrifice?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself is providing the lamb for the sacrifice, my son.”

So both Abraham and his son went together to that place. 9 When they came to the place where God told them to go, Abraham built an altar. He carefully laid the wood on the altar. Then he tied up his son Isaac and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached for his knife to kill his son.

11 But the angel of the Lord stopped him. The angel called from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

Abraham answered, “Yes?”

12 The angel said, “Don’t kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you do respect and obey God. I see that you are ready to kill your son, your only son, for me.”



Murdering women, children and babies is okay.

1 Samuel 15:1-5
​

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.


Stoning your disobedient child is good.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
​

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


And then there's that whole thing where all of humanity is supposedly responsible for the actions of the supposed first two people, which is also ridiculously immoral, in my opinion.


Like I said, I find your god to be immoral, as I see all of those things as immoral actions, all commanded by god as "good" actions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The best way to look at Adam and Eve, that is consistent with both Science and the Bible, is to firs consider two innovations, that science has carbon dated, as being in the same time scale as the bible dating of Adam and Eve. These are the invention of written language and the appearance of the first sustainable civilization. Once civilization stuck, this was a milestone for humans; new era, where natural selection is locally replaced by man made selection. Nature is developed by man, altering the natural environment that humans had once lived in.

This POV does not deny evolution. What it does is create a side branch; about 6000 years ago, in terms of human evolution, where the natural environment for natural selection, is altered by the man made environment of civilization. Humans become less natural, due to the man made pressures and the man made selections. For example, farming was not natural to the migratory humans but key to civilization. That is the fall from paradise; loss of nature. The main trigger was knowledge of good and evil, which is law, in light of the invention of written language.

Consider going to school at a time when there is no written language. You have spoken language, but you cannot read, record or study with blackboards, books and notes. You have to depend on the lecturer and your own memory. It won't take long, before you forget, overlook or embellish what you think you heard in a one hour lecture. Even in group study, there will be difference of opinion based on what each person thought they selectively heard.

Once written language appears, mental clarity appears, since hard memory can now be stored outside you, on paper or stone, allowing you to refresh your memory at any time in the future. This was critical for civilization. It was needed for commerce so people are not arguing over verbal contracts. It was useful for early science to record observations. It was useful for creating a manual needed for the logistics of sustainable culture, etc. Written language was critical for sustainable civilization. Science can show that civilizations had formed previous to this time, but these were not sustainable but all aborted. Once the innovators who formed these earlier civilization passed, verbal transfer alone was not sufficient for the next generation to sustain it; forget important details.

The problem with written language, that would change the path of humans, was its application to law or knowledge of good and evil. Before written language, humans would create laws, rules and guidelines, but these would change with time and need; fluid natural memory.

Written language created a way to allow obsolete law, rules and guidelines, to linger in time, way beyond their natural need. This meant that outdated law, once carved to stone, could remain forever, no longer allowing people to advance and adapt in a natural way. This created a repression of the natural mind; tree of life is taken away, and a new type of human appears in terms of the brain's operating system. Adam and Eve symbolize this new type of human, that diverges from natural selection, making selections around lingering knowledge of good and evil.

A good example of how written knowledge can linger in time are the Holy Books of all the world religions. Many of these are thousands of years old. They perpetuate the past and create it anew for each generation, well into the future. Through man made selection, this has had an impact on the operating system of the human brain; new type of human who is not exactly natural. Adam and Eve were on the ground floor of this change.

Adam, by tradition, was good at math and science. He gets to name and catalog all the animals; write them down. This use of the invention was OK. It appears Eve had the idea to write down laws and rules. Unlike science records that build a platform for advancement, the knowledge of good and evil platform, would amplify both good and evil, since one implies the other. Adam and Eve were a couple of nerds changing the course of history.

Your entire argument falls apart upon the realization that nothing about human civilization makes humans exempt from being subject to natural selection.

 

[Mister Emu]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

For the record, and sorry if it already posted. That the theory of evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching is not the same thing as Adam and Eve not being the first man and woman with their story being truth. The stance of the Catholic Church is that Adam and Eve were historical personages, and that the fall is a factual account of how sin entered human life.

 

[Brian2]

You only cited and answered one of my three questions. How come?

So whatever god says is good, is good, because god "really knows what is good."


So slavery is good.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

​

​

​

Murdering one's own child is good.

Genesis 22:1-12
22 After these things God decided to test Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Yes!”

2 Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.”

3 In the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. He cut the wood for the sacrifice. Then they went to the place where God told them to go. 4 After they traveled three days, Abraham looked up, and in the distance he saw the place where they were going. 5 Then he said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go to that place and worship. Then we will come back to you later.”

6 Abraham took the wood for the sacrifice and put it on his son’s shoulder. Abraham took the special knife and fire. Then both he and his son went together to the place for worship.

7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!”

Abraham answered, “Yes, son?”

Isaac said, “I see the wood and the fire. But where is the lamb we will burn as a sacrifice?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself is providing the lamb for the sacrifice, my son.”

So both Abraham and his son went together to that place. 9 When they came to the place where God told them to go, Abraham built an altar. He carefully laid the wood on the altar. Then he tied up his son Isaac and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached for his knife to kill his son.

11 But the angel of the Lord stopped him. The angel called from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

Abraham answered, “Yes?”

12 The angel said, “Don’t kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you do respect and obey God. I see that you are ready to kill your son, your only son, for me.”



Murdering women, children and babies is okay.

1 Samuel 15:1-5​

​

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.


Stoning your disobedient child is good.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21​

​

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

You seem to have taken those things out of context and then called them good when the text does not say they are necessarily good.

And then there's that whole thing where all of humanity is supposedly responsible for the actions of the supposed first two people, which is also ridiculously immoral, in my opinion.

Where is it said that all humanity is responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve?

 

[metis]

I disagree with that. And I think world is already ruled by greed. Extremely heavy taxation is one evidence for it.

Obviously, tithing didn't bother Jesus because he didn't put money & materialism over people.

 

[metis]

The stance of the Catholic Church is that Adam and Eve were historical personages, and that the fall is a factual account of how sin entered human life.

That's the "official stance", but then some Catholic theologians roll their eyes over that as it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You seem to have taken those things out of context and then called them good when the text does not say they are necessarily good.

Does God often command his children to do things that aren't good?

Where is it said that all humanity is responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve?

In the Bible. Original sin.

 

[Brian2]

Does God often command his children to do things that aren't good?

I don't know how often God might do that. However some things are necessary in certain situations even though they are not good actions in themselves.
Some things are allowed by God even when they are not God's perfect will for us.

In the Bible. Original sin.

I see nowhere that humanity is punished for the first sin of Adam and Eve even if we inherit the results of the sin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and probably inherit the results of other sins that Adam and Eve did.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's the "official stance", but then some Catholic theologians roll their eyes over that as it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And yet, that is the dogmatic stance that all Catholics must espouse to remain in full communion with the Church. "Some" theologians say all kinds of things, which doesn't reflect on what Catholic teaching actually is or even necessarily what they assent to; there is a line of Catholic theological discourse which exists for making sure we are thinking and truly considering what the Church teaches and not to actually accept the positions offered.

Which theologians suggest that it doesn't make sense? Finding another scenario more probable is not the same thing.