Just the order of creation (and discrepancies.between the two) indicates the bible is to be.read allegorical, metaphorical, metaphysical and not literal in this regard.
Religious Views On Evolution
- Thread starter Lux
- Start date
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
Optimism on steroids right there.
Priest, mathemetician ,.father of father of boy scouts...
Powell was an outspoken advocate of the constant uniformity of the laws of the material world. His views were liberal, and he was sympathetic to evolutionary theory long before Charles Darwin had revealed his ideas. He argued that science should not be placed next to scripture or the two approaches would conflict, and in his own version of Francis Bacon's dictum, contended that the book of God's works was separate from the book of God's word, claiming that moral and physical phenomena were completely independent.[5]
His faith in the uniformity of nature (except man's mind) was set out in a theologicalargument; if God is a lawgiver, then a "miracle" would break the lawful edicts that had been issued at Creation. Therefore, a belief in miracles would be entirely atheistic.[6]Powell's most significant works defended, in succession, the uniformitarian geology set out by Charles Lyell and the evolutionary ideas inVestiges of the Natural History of Creationpublished anonymously by Robert Chamberswhich applied uniform laws to the history of life in contrast to more respectable ideas such as catastrophism involving a series of divine creations.[5] "He insisted that no tortured interpretation of Genesis would ever suffice; we had to let go of the Days of Creation and base Christianity on the moral laws of the New Testament."[7]
The boldness of Powell and other theologians in dealing with science led Joseph Dalton Hooker to comment in a letter to Asa Graydated 29 March 1857: "These parsons are so in the habit of dealing with the abstractions of doctrines as if there was no difficulty about them whatever, so confident, from the practice of having the talk all to themselves for an hour at least every week with no one to gainsay a syllable they utter, be it ever so loose or bad, that they gallop over the course when their field is Botany or Geology as if we were in the pews and they in the pulpit. Witness the self-confident style of Whewell and Baden Powell, Sedgwick and Buckland."William Whewell, Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland opposed evolutionary ideas.[8]
When the idea of natural selection was mooted by Darwin and Wallace in their 1858 papers to the Linnaean Society, both Powell and his young friend William Henry Flowerthought that natural selection made creation rational.[9]
The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly manner by the Rev. Baden Powell, in his 'Essays on the Unity of Worlds,' 1855. Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon," or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, "a natural in contra-distinction to a miraculous process."[10]
Powell was an outspoken advocate of the constant uniformity of the laws of the material world. His views were liberal, and he was sympathetic to evolutionary theory long before Charles Darwin had revealed his ideas. He argued that science should not be placed next to scripture or the two approaches would conflict, and in his own version of Francis Bacon's dictum, contended that the book of God's works was separate from the book of God's word, claiming that moral and physical phenomena were completely independent.[5]
His faith in the uniformity of nature (except man's mind) was set out in a theologicalargument; if God is a lawgiver, then a "miracle" would break the lawful edicts that had been issued at Creation. Therefore, a belief in miracles would be entirely atheistic.[6]Powell's most significant works defended, in succession, the uniformitarian geology set out by Charles Lyell and the evolutionary ideas inVestiges of the Natural History of Creationpublished anonymously by Robert Chamberswhich applied uniform laws to the history of life in contrast to more respectable ideas such as catastrophism involving a series of divine creations.[5] "He insisted that no tortured interpretation of Genesis would ever suffice; we had to let go of the Days of Creation and base Christianity on the moral laws of the New Testament."[7]
The boldness of Powell and other theologians in dealing with science led Joseph Dalton Hooker to comment in a letter to Asa Graydated 29 March 1857: "These parsons are so in the habit of dealing with the abstractions of doctrines as if there was no difficulty about them whatever, so confident, from the practice of having the talk all to themselves for an hour at least every week with no one to gainsay a syllable they utter, be it ever so loose or bad, that they gallop over the course when their field is Botany or Geology as if we were in the pews and they in the pulpit. Witness the self-confident style of Whewell and Baden Powell, Sedgwick and Buckland."William Whewell, Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland opposed evolutionary ideas.[8]
When the idea of natural selection was mooted by Darwin and Wallace in their 1858 papers to the Linnaean Society, both Powell and his young friend William Henry Flowerthought that natural selection made creation rational.[9]
The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly manner by the Rev. Baden Powell, in his 'Essays on the Unity of Worlds,' 1855. Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon," or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, "a natural in contra-distinction to a miraculous process."[10]
Well that is the traditional and scholarly understanding.
With regard to time, I think if people understood the Bible is not a scientific treatise then that would prevent a lot of nonsense like the current Creationist palava, and the attempts to make Science and Scripture say the same thing. Scripture will always lose, because science (in the narrower spectrum of the natural sciences) only allows the empirical.
With regard to light, according to commentaries on and the etymology of the terms used, the light spoken of in the opening verses I would regard as knowing, understanding, comprehending ... it is quite possible that a God could have created a cosmos within which the created was absolutely unknowing with regard to the Divine — as in gnostic cosmologies.
The soul-body duality has always been alien to the Hebrew paradigm, and Christianity took the Hebrew rather than the Hellenic view on board. It's popped up again in more recent times when people seek to blend Christianity with other religious paradigms.
O
omega2xx
Guest
I know that, but I thought Catholic teaching says that he is.
O
omega2xx
Guest
Question---Whee did the matter to go bang come from?
Fact---there is no scientific evidence for the BB. Eve some evolutionist are starting to accept that truth.
I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers. Fred Hoyle
O
omega2xx
Guest
Gee, everyone is having so much fun venturing down this rabbit hole yet again. Perhaps I should take the plunge as well and see if I can't unite both camps in total disagreement with what I'm about to say.
Good thought but unlikely too change any minds. Let me throw a few marshmellows y0ur way.
To say Go's initial creation paved the way for some type of evolutionary process is rejected by the Bible. Theistic evolution is a common belief of those thinking evolution has been proved through science. it hasn't.
Then you need to do some research on the problems with their dating methods. Actually the age of the earth is a red herring. How it came into being is the only important consideration.
Those who use that argument need to know the Bible does not give the age of the earth.
What you are suggesting is know as eh "gap theory." It was invented by some theologians who were afraid science would prove the bible wrong. That is unnecessary. There is no break between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. WE just need to read it like it is and not invent a theology to fit an opinion.
Ok, let the stone throwing begin!
I hope you caught one and ate it.
O
omega2xx
Guest
In conservative Christianity, that is neither traditional nor scholarly.
Again you do not understand conservative theology. We understand and teach that the Bible is not about science, but where it touches on science it is 100% accurate. After it since has been proven by observation and repeating it self, and it can't be falsified. Also it refutes evolution. The main palava of evolution is that all the variety we see today in both plant and animal life originated from a single source. Not only is that so absurd it iis hare do understand how anyone with an IQ over 100 could believe it. Also that OPINION is refuted by genetics.
When properly understood, Scripture never looses. Evolution loses for the reason you just mentioned--science only allows for the empirical and evolution has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. OTOH the evidence for after its kind is empirical.
It certainly is true that light is used a symbol for the things you just mentioned, but we should not limit it to those things.,and darkness symbolizes the opposite of those things.
Let me point you to another use of light:
2 Cor 4:4 - in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is made in the image of God.
2 Cor 4:6 -
For God who said, , "Light shall shine out of darkness, is the One who has shown in our hearts to give us the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Irrelevant because He didn't.
Conservative Christianity does not try to blend other religions into it theology. That is forbidden by God. It is liberal theology that does that.
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
Enough mate. Take some advice from an old farmer's son. You've sown your seeds. Now walk away. If it be God's will they'll take root, but not if you keep trodden over them again and again. At this point you're just hindering the process.
Last edited:
No it doesn't, but I'll not get into ping-pong with you, show me the evidence!
I have no idea what brand of Christianity you mean, as every denomination has conservative and liberal elements.
2 Cor 4:4 - in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is made in the image of God.
2 Cor 4:6 - For God who said, , "Light shall shine out of darkness, is the One who has shown in our hearts to give us the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
Exactly the light I am talking about. Nothing to do with science.
Its that evangelical literalist version that the US propagated back in the late 1800s when they wanted to make america great again and wished for the good old puritan past...
Name a few....post some links..
Geez.... I feel like I'm on an Elementary School playground arguing over a found ball. "It's mine! No, it's mine! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not! Is so!" Go home kids, your mother's calling you!!!
Works like that when one can't support their arguments .
It was you that made me first realize it was a. A US phenomena, B not worldwide, and C relatively new creation.
With regard to the Catholic position, 'evolution' is not a matter of faith or morals so the faithful are open to believe as they will.
The first 11 chapters of Genesis are regarded as a mythological text, carrying profound psycho-spiritual insights and offering a metaphysical 'ground' for the interested inquirer.
For my part, my final BA thesis was 'around' the topic. It was a particular exegesis of the Mystagogia of St Maximus the Confessor (which raised smiles, including a defence of Teilhard de Chardin probably didn’t do me any favours … )
Mystagogia is a deepening look at the Christian mysteries, specifically as presented in the Christian Liturgy. My particular slant was a celebration of what one might call 'creation spirituality' (without the sentimental syncretism that the term accrued thanks to Matthew Fox et al).
The basic premise was that as man was made from the dust of the earth, so creation is ordered from the ground up. Adam means "man," but more precisely from the Hebrew "(of the) ground" (Hebrew: adamah 'ground'). So I see no contradiction in the idea that God formed man from the earth, or that life evolved from the planetary primordial soup.
At what point a being can be said to possess a 'soul' is likewise tied up with the idea that, in the Hebrew sense, soul is life and life is soul, so anything that has life has soul, not just man.
If one sees the idea of 'enlightenment' as the realisation that the cosmos is one, that it's 'all in all', etc, then 'base matter', the meanest particle of physical matter, is at the bottom of the spectrum in the sense that it suffers absolute privation – it is unresponsive, unreactive, unrelational, isolated, alone, not-living, etc., etc.
Then we see a chain of combinations towards 'life' which is reactive, relational, responsive … mineral to flora, flora to fauna, fauna to human, human to angelic …
At each progressive stage, all below is incorporated into and finds its transcendence and its glory in the above, so in man the entire natural cosmos is represented, and man signifies a change from the natural to a union with the supernatural.
The ancients saw this 'progress' as cyclic, that everything returns to the source of its arising, and that God, who is there at the beginning starts the whole process with a view to its end, which is a return to God – the revised Platonic triune genesis-kinesis-stasis (beginning, movement, rest).
All this is celebrated discreetly in the Liturgy.
For me its all there when we say "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life." ... the point being that what is taken up is that 'which earth has given', but we offer ourselves up too, we are too the bread 'which earth has given', so in that sense the entire cosmos is being offered up for consecration, for deification or theosis, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
As Augustine used to tell the catechumen before they receive the Eucharist for the first time: "Be what you can see, and receive what you are." (Sermon 272)
+++
A priest once said to me, "Think of the universe. Think of the infinite reaches of space, the infinite expanse of time, the infinite size of the cosmos, the infinite smallness of the subatomic realm. All that knowledge, all that art, all that music, all that craft ... Awesome, isn't it, and d'you know what's more awesome still? We can hold it all, here." And he tapped the side of his head.
When I repeat his words, I tap my heart.
The first 11 chapters of Genesis are regarded as a mythological text, carrying profound psycho-spiritual insights and offering a metaphysical 'ground' for the interested inquirer.
For my part, my final BA thesis was 'around' the topic. It was a particular exegesis of the Mystagogia of St Maximus the Confessor (which raised smiles, including a defence of Teilhard de Chardin probably didn’t do me any favours … )
Mystagogia is a deepening look at the Christian mysteries, specifically as presented in the Christian Liturgy. My particular slant was a celebration of what one might call 'creation spirituality' (without the sentimental syncretism that the term accrued thanks to Matthew Fox et al).
The basic premise was that as man was made from the dust of the earth, so creation is ordered from the ground up. Adam means "man," but more precisely from the Hebrew "(of the) ground" (Hebrew: adamah 'ground'). So I see no contradiction in the idea that God formed man from the earth, or that life evolved from the planetary primordial soup.
At what point a being can be said to possess a 'soul' is likewise tied up with the idea that, in the Hebrew sense, soul is life and life is soul, so anything that has life has soul, not just man.
If one sees the idea of 'enlightenment' as the realisation that the cosmos is one, that it's 'all in all', etc, then 'base matter', the meanest particle of physical matter, is at the bottom of the spectrum in the sense that it suffers absolute privation – it is unresponsive, unreactive, unrelational, isolated, alone, not-living, etc., etc.
Then we see a chain of combinations towards 'life' which is reactive, relational, responsive … mineral to flora, flora to fauna, fauna to human, human to angelic …
At each progressive stage, all below is incorporated into and finds its transcendence and its glory in the above, so in man the entire natural cosmos is represented, and man signifies a change from the natural to a union with the supernatural.
The ancients saw this 'progress' as cyclic, that everything returns to the source of its arising, and that God, who is there at the beginning starts the whole process with a view to its end, which is a return to God – the revised Platonic triune genesis-kinesis-stasis (beginning, movement, rest).
All this is celebrated discreetly in the Liturgy.
For me its all there when we say "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life." ... the point being that what is taken up is that 'which earth has given', but we offer ourselves up too, we are too the bread 'which earth has given', so in that sense the entire cosmos is being offered up for consecration, for deification or theosis, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
As Augustine used to tell the catechumen before they receive the Eucharist for the first time: "Be what you can see, and receive what you are." (Sermon 272)
+++
A priest once said to me, "Think of the universe. Think of the infinite reaches of space, the infinite expanse of time, the infinite size of the cosmos, the infinite smallness of the subatomic realm. All that knowledge, all that art, all that music, all that craft ... Awesome, isn't it, and d'you know what's more awesome still? We can hold it all, here." And he tapped the side of his head.
When I repeat his words, I tap my heart.
Sheesh buddy, you owe me a drink!
And you made me realise that, er, Boss, er, we might have a problem here ... (Got my Glastonbury campervan ticket today, which means my beloved and I will be up on a hilltop in our little folding caravan (think of your average winnebago, then divide it by ten, then do that again
) And my daughters/husbands will be in tents, and my grandson will experience his first Glastonbury ... )