Creation

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 15 2005, 11:46 PM'] As historically accurate? In some sense, yes.
[/quote]

"In some sense." Anyone can agree to that, if they can somehow get past the improper application of the word "historical" to events that are prehistoric. The question is whether the authors intended their language to be understood figuratively (e.g. as a powerful metaphor expressing a vital truth beyond mere factual description) or factually (i.e. God removed the man's side and built it into a woman).

[track2004]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 14 2005, 07:17 PM'] and either way... what was/is the point of the dinos... [/quote]
I heard this answered really well one time. God, the all knowing coolest being ever, knew that eventually 5 year old boys and archeologists would exist right. So this being true He made dinosaurs for them. My friend Mike E (you may know him Film) has a son who absolutely loves dinosaurs and they make him very happy and curious. God, in essence, created them expressly for him because God knew that they would make him happy (bring a smile to his face). Also the fuel thing too, but that one is not as cool.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 16 2005, 05:58 AM']
"In some sense." Anyone can agree to that, if they can somehow get past the improper application of the word "historical" to events that are prehistoric. The question is whether the authors intended their language to be understood figuratively (e.g. as a powerful metaphor expressing a vital truth beyond mere factual description) or factually (i.e. God removed the man's side and built it into a woman). [/quote]
Just read the paper. I'll reply to your post when I have more time to clarify mine.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 16 2005, 04:58 AM']
No, being made from his side signifies woman is also a human person like the man, that they (unlike all other creatures) share a common humanity, their solidarity and somatic unity, that she is a "corresponding help" or "counterpart" ('ezer kenegdo) to him (and he to her), etc. The Hebrew and Aramaic words for "side" (sela' and sila') are apparently still used to signify a friend or kinsman. [/quote]
yes, I understand this point as well - for the ancient Hebrews, the "bone" was the essence of a person and to mention "bone" was to mention the entirety of the individual. Thus, by exclaiming "here at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" Adam gives verbal confirmation to the fact that God had made Eve from his own bone and by this is meant that Eve was made a [i]human person[/i] just as Adam was.

Because I understand this, I included the phrase "among other things" in my original post. However, Scripture has many valid interpretations, and I see no reason why the above, which I hold as true, should negate the point that I made concerning the Order of Authority, which I also hold as true, on account of the fact that it does not contradict any teaching of the faith.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited January 16, 2005 by JeffCR07

[cathqat]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 16 2005, 02:48 PM'] I see no reason why the above, which I hold as true, should negate the point that I made concerning the Order of Authority, which I also hold as true, on account of the fact that it does not contradict any teaching of the faith.
[/quote]
Whether such an "order of authority" may be consistent with other teachings of the Church is a different question. There is no justification for an "order of authority" in this Genesis text. Such a claim goes beyond the text at hand.

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Jan 14 2005, 06:56 PM'] Sorry, but I kind of laughed at that list of creationists. [/quote]
I did too; first there weren't many and second, not many were actually biologists.

I must say that one of the things that I am thankful for in the Catholic Church is that it allows Science the freedom to do what it is supposed to do. Further, it isn't tied down to an ultra-literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis.

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 16 2005, 02:29 PM'] Just read the paper. [/quote]
I'll freely admit that I only read part of it. I do not like reading long texts online, and do not currently have access to a printer.

One problem is that the paper isn't clearly written, so it's hard to decipher his point. His vague application of the term "historical" to prehistoric events, for example, and his misuse of the term "literal" just muddy the waters. There seems to be quite a bit of question begging in his use of citations too.

Would you care to clarify?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 16 2005, 05:52 PM'] Whether such an "order of authority" may be consistent with other teachings of the Church is a different question. There is no justification for an "order of authority" in this Genesis text. Such a claim goes beyond the text at hand. [/quote]
Given the fact that a text can have numerous levels of interpretation, I find your assertion to be somewhat obtuse.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 06:12 PM'] I did too; first there weren't many and second, not many were actually biologists.

[/quote]
I don't believe I claimed it was a complete list. Actually I said just the opposite. I said it is a "short list".

Second, there are biologists on the list.

Third, the theory of evolution goes well beyond the world of biology.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 16 2005, 06:17 PM'] I'll freely admit that I only read part of it. I do not like reading long texts online, and do not currently have access to a printer.



[/quote]
Fair enough. How much of the article did you read?

[quote]One problem is that the paper isn't clearly written, so it's hard to decipher his point.[/quote]

Interesting observation considering you didn't read the whole thing. Furthermore, that is the first time I have ever heard (or read) anyone (friend or foe) ever claim that something Fr. Harrison wrote was not clear.

[quote]His vague application of the term "historical" to prehistoric events, for example, and his misuse of the term "literal" just muddy the waters. [/quote]

Again, Fr. Harrison is far from vague. His definitions may not correspond to your own, but your assertion that he is misusing them (without providing evidence, examples or sources) borders on arrogance. Generally when the intellectually honest student of theology (by that I simply mean anyone who studies theology), or any discipline for that matter, encounters a term being used in an unfamiliar way he seeks to understand how that term is being used instead of simply accusing the author of misusing it, especially when that author is a theologian of such preeminence as Fr. Fr. Harrison. Furthermore, you make this accusation without having read the article. If you would read the article, you would see that his meaning is quite clear. If it does not satisfy you, then I suggest you contact him. He would be all too happy to clarify it for you.

[quote] There seems to be quite a bit of question begging in his use of citations too.[/quote]

Again, an accusation with no examples.

[quote] Would you care to clarify? [/quote]

I have neither the ability nor the right to clarify his article.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 06:12 PM'] I did too; first there weren't many and second, not many were actually biologists.

I must say that one of the things that I am thankful for in the Catholic Church is that it allows Science the freedom to do what it is supposed to do.  Further, it isn't tied down to an ultra-literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. [/quote]
Here's some Biology for you:
[url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/[/url]

This is from Dr. Michael Behe,
Professor of Biochemistry
Department of Biological
Sciences, Lehigh University:
[url="http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm"]http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm[/url]
Some of his articles can be found here:
[url="http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_articles.htm"]http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_articles.htm[/url]

Edited January 17, 2005 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

For those evolutionists interested in making some cash (potentially $20,000), see the following:

[url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Whether such an "order of authority" may be consistent with other teachings of the Church is a different question. There is no justification for an "order of authority" in this Genesis text. Such a claim goes beyond the text at hand.[/quote]

The Order of Authority about which I speak is derived from Natural Law. There are multiple differing authorities existing in the world and some take priority over others. So there is an order to authority. Thus, the Order of Authority is merely a reference to the hierarchy of natural authorities existing within Creation. This notion is not foreign to the Scriptures, and, moreover, is most certainly justified by them on the whole. I still maintain that one of the levels upon which the particular passage in Genesis works is in establishing both Man and Woman as equally human, but with Man higher in the Order of Authority.

If you disagree, that is entirely your perogative, but you have provided no legitimate counterargument for why I am incorrect. If you wish to do so, I'm all ears.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 16 2005, 10:49 PM']Fair enough.  How much of the article did you read?[/quote]

Hard to say. That's one reason I hate trying to read long articles online. I think it was a good 3/5ths or more, then skipping around.

[quote]that is the first time I have ever heard (or read) anyone (friend or foe) ever claim that something Fr. Harrison wrote was not clear.... Fr. Harrison is far from vague.[/quote]

I gave examples about how he is vague. I am very surprised no one's mentioned them before. If you think his use of terms is clear, I've already invited you to clarify the meanings.

[quote]His definitions may not correspond to your own, but your assertion that he is misusing them (without providing evidence, examples or sources) borders on arrogance.[/quote]

OK. I think your assertion that he is clear, even while using terms in an unclear way without bothering to clarify or define them, "borders on arrogance." That's not an effective response, you know.

[quote]Generally when the intellectually honest student of theology (by that I simply mean anyone who studies theology), or any discipline for that matter, encounters a term being used in an unfamiliar way he seeks to understand how that term is being used[/quote]

I looked for an explanation of his meaning didn't find it. I do not think it unreasonable to expect him to clarify the use of some terms before the midpoint of the paper, though. You are welcome to present what he means if you think you can clarify it.

[quote]Furthermore, you make this accusation without having read the article.[/quote]

I read a good bit of it, and I've also invited you to clarify it. If you refuse to do so, that's up to you.

[quote]If it does not satisfy you, then I suggest you contact him.[/quote]

I see no reason to contact him.

[quote]I have neither the ability nor the right to clarify his article.[/quote]

But you do have the ability and right to clarify your own meaning. Would you like to do so?

[cathqat]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 16 2005, 11:16 PM'] If you disagree, that is entirely your perogative, but you have provided no legitimate counterargument for why I am incorrect. If you wish to do so, I'm all ears.
[/quote]
And you have not provided a legitimate argument that you are correct, either. But I suggest that we retire the tangent anyway. Let the thread stay focused on that whole "creation versus evolution" track.