Jesus on Trial
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 08:57PM Crimes have been committed. They are of "abuse of popular credulity and belief (article 661, Italian criminal code) and the substitution of person" (494, Italian criminal code). Who are the villains who have perpetrated such fraud and deceit? Christians.
More specifically, a lawsuit has been brought against Fr. Enrico Righi, Roman Catholic parish priest in Bagnoregio, Italy, "as representative of ministers of religion, for abuse of popular credulity and impersonation." The plaintiff is Luigi Cascioli, Italian atheist, and Fr. Righi is his childhood friend.
In a nutshell, Cascioli is charging the Catholic Church (i.e., the Christian faith) with misrepresenting the identity of Christ and perpetuating a fraud. His legal challenge is that Fr. Righi prove the existence of Christ. Cascioli explains in his lawsuit:
After long and deep studies consisting of (and not only) textual exegesis of the Old and New Testament and other Sacred Scriptures, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that many of the facts produced and presented as if being true and historical in the so called “Holy Scriptures”, are in reality false, first of all the historicization of the figure of Jesus Christ, for the most part based on the figure of John of Gamala, son of Judas, downright descendant of the Asmoneian stock.
In short, Cascioli claims that Jesus was not really Jesus, but rather a guy named "John", that Joseph and Mary are two totally imaginary characters, that the Bible is composed of fables and that Christianity is a fraud.
This is nothing new. Cascioli is a pawn of atheism which has been a passing torch since the conception of Christianity. No where in his claims of Christian deception is Cascioli able to substantiate his own claims that would disprove the existence of Jesus Christ. Cascioli in particular is a student of Celsus. Celsus was an eclectic polemical writer against Christianity in the 2nd century A.D. Catholic Encyclopedia says of Celsus:
Celsus’s work may be divided as follows: a preface, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy, a refutation of Christian teachings in detail, and an appeal to Christians to adopt paganism. Christ, he says, claimed to be of virgin birth; in reality, He was the son of a Jewish village woman, the wife of a carpenter. The flight into Egypt, the absence of any divine intervention in favour of the Mother of Jesus , who was driven forth with her husband, and other arguments are used to show that Christ was not the Messias. During the course of His public ministry Christ could not convince His countrymen that His mission was divine. As followers He had ten or twelve "infamous publicans and fishermen". Such is not the company that befits a god.
First Century historian Flavius Josephus testifies not only to the existence, but to the divinity of Jesus. This is what Josephus, apparently a non-Christian, reportedly had to say about Jesus Christ:
"There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was Christ. Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among us, condemned Him to the cross. He appeared to His followers alive again the third day."
Josephus names the same Pontius Pilate who is mentioned in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds (recited at Christian services around the world to this day), as well as in the Gospels of the New Testament which ties the historical Pilate and Jesus together.
It’ll be a long trial if the Italian court calls for the 2.1 billion Christians in the world to be called to the witness stand. Cascioli should be counter-sued to prove the existence of Mohammad, Napoleon, King Tut, Queen Cleopatra or Martin Luther. All supposedly existed and left some mark on the world, but their existence is only proven through paintings and portraits, writings and documents. Their posterity, if they can be traced, cannot out number the children of the faith of Christianity, nor can they rival the number of followers of Christ. How can we say that a modern day descendant of Mohammad, for example, is truly a descendant when he may have been called "Abdula"? Or that his birth place or parents were legitimately named? Every historical figure should be suspect if Cascioli’s premise is taken seriously.
Even if Jesus were not real, or never existed, the Christian faith has played an undeniably positive role in history. It is universities, hospices, charity for the poor, disabled and elderly, equality and rights for women and protection for children that have been established because of Christianity. To take Christianity out of the world would be to live in a Stalinistic Soviet Union or a Communist China. The truth is that Cascioli cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, or that Jesus is as historical a figure (as any other pre-technological figure) is not real. The Christian Church traces through painstaking documenting the person of Christ to be more real than all other pre-modern figures. Even our calendar acknowledges His existence, and as irony would have it Cascioli is sworn into court in the 2006 year of Our Lord, A.D.
(*hat tip: PCD & LinkedInUSAF )
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/365987
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (46)
In fact athiesm has existed since at least ancient times, far predating xianity.
The existence of Napoleon is much more widely documented than Jesus (just talking about surviving documents, of course he's a great deal more recent), we still have the body of King Tutankamun etc. I'd say that the existence of figures like Plato and Archimedes is even more clear than the later figure of Jesus.
Do I take it that you doubt the existence of Mohammed?
As for the positivity of the Christian faith, well I've talked with you about it before. It's most definitely a mixed bag. I'm sure you have excuses for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Witch trials, the treatment of Galileo etc. but you most definitely don't offer anything like that amount of charity to acts committed in the name of other religions such as Islam.
Also, please note that the seed of democracy was sewn in Ancient Greece, again predating Christianity. It was a lot different from Stalinism or Maoism, in some ways purer than modern democracies since any citizen could vote and speak on any issue. Our democracies are restricted to two or three substancial polls per decade (Each with a severely restricted palette of choices). It wasn't perfect, of course, Greek society was reliant on slave labour... but then so was the original American civilisation, fortified as it was by the positive influence of Christianity.
Again, the Greeks beat Christianity to the punch with Universities.
Hospices and charity are also old ideas. Some ancient societies were very equal between the sexes, and since when have children not been protected??
The calendar was imposed by the Roman Emporer when it converted. It has more to do with the Roman's power than God's.
Jesus, on the other hand, is woven into
1) a Roman census
2) the reign of Herod
3) the life of Pilate
Of course, Jesus is a lot older (and I may easily have missed some things), but nevertheless it's orders of magnitude less to go on than with Napoleon. (not to mention, the chronology of the census and Herod's reign is extremely problematic).
Darwinism and Evolution are only theories only accepted by elitists as the sole answer. Intelligent Design is another theory. As theories they should be given equal weight. ID has not been disproven.
I'd love to know whom you consider to be elitist.
Michael Newdow, as far as I have (so very briefly) seen is looking for constitutional consistency. He might be over-keen in your view.
Think about this: a scientist will say that a fossil/bone/thing is 30 million years old. Not only is there no point of reference for the fossil/bone/thing, but over such a period of time think about the element itself. We know that everything except for perhaps a diamond or other such object, which is never used in carbon or other dating, can be broken, eroded or altered. When a fossil/bone/thing is exposed to extreme heat, cold, erosion, water, salt, oxygen, gases, etc. etc., how can you say that the element has NOT changed over MILLIONS of years? How then can you possibly determine the age via any sort of realistic dating? You can't.
If recorded human history only goes back as far as the last 6 or 7 thousand years, on what basis can it be decided that something like carbon dating is reliable? If modern history is when carbon dating and other such "scientific explanations became an option, against what do you measure it's accuracy, since you cannot use history to do so? You have to use theory. You have to rely on faith that any such dating, carbon or otherwise, is accurate, and there are way too many variables to make that reliable.
ID or creation is scientific. In fact, if you follow the Biblical account of creation, it lines up far more convincingly scientifically than evolution. Factor in a great flood, 6000 years of human history, the rate of erosion (the world would be the size of a marble if it eroded at the rate it does now if it were billions or millions of years old) and you can easily conclude that a higher being orchestrated the origin of the universe.
Not only that, but ID is totally legit as a "theory" because it goes to the question of the origin of the universe.
Catholic newspaper L'Osservatore Romano agrees with me.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/sc_nm/religion_catholic_evolution_dc
Anything printed in the newspaper is vetted carefully by the Vatican.
We've talked about dating before, Amy. Dating is verified by using multiple isotope pairs, by correspondence with dendrochronology (tree ring data), ice cores etc. There is no reason for all of these things to agree, the fact that they do is strong verification. The body of data is *enormous*.
Isn't that a property all scholarship in general? Specifically, science is to do with rejecting theories which do not explain phenomena or experiments. When a theory is unfalsifyable, as we agree ID is, science is a useless, inappropriate tool.
I don't believe in evolution AT ALL, but there is strong data to indicate this world is older than 6,000 years. It doesn't affect my faith (God created the world in seven days, period, end of story), it's just difficult to reconcile, for instance, the growth of coral reefs (and the abundant supply it is in today) with a supposed 6,000 year old Earth.
That being said, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden (during which they were immortal). We don't know completely what effect the introduction of sin had on this planet. We don't know a lot of things. The Bible remains the best source of our history... but the fact is that the story of creation presented inside it makes no claim of being complete in terms of the Earth's history.
I don't mean this as a flame against you AmyP, but why is it so hard for people to just say "I don't know?"
And just so there's no misunderstanding here, God created man; we did not evolve.
Christians are lost, short sighted, bigoted, intolerant, and evil. Christianity has brought death, destruction, confusion, and clouds reality with stories of miracles and unverifiable acts.
Athiests are pure, learned, rich in diversity, open minded, and caring. Athiests and their close bretheren bring peace, love, unity, clarity, and breaks the bonds of limited reason.
Alas, my world has been shattered.
Wait ... I have faith. No matter how often it is brought forth that Christianity is what it is not, I rest peacefully knowing I have a place and a future. That knowledge shall not be wrested from me, no matter the challenge.
Hmm, I seem to feel the same way about my country. I wonder if, somehow, there is a connection ... ???
Naw, those dolts so many years ago didn't put "In God We Trust" on money for a reason ... ya think? Why do we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?
Shoot, I forgot, I can't posit these things! I haven't the facilities to put forth an argument. I live in a "dream world" ...
Anyone seen Art Bell lately? I seem to have misplaced my tinfoil chapeau ... rats, conflicting signals again ... where are those meds, anyway?
Did anyone look this up on Wikipedia? Just checking?
Jesus was already tried once and surged victorious. Some people just don't understand what Chritianity's all about. It's not about rites, it's not about history, it's not about archaeology. It's about Justice, it's about Peace, it's about Love, it's about Mercy even for atheists (just look at what other religions offer).
So all the guessing and blather about carbon dating, paleolithic man, ice ages, etc.. is much easier to dismiss as fiction because there is NO EVIDENCE for it other than scientists conjecturing about this rock formation or that species (supposed) mutation. THERE IS NO PROOF. At least the Christians and the Jews have records, prophecies, personal eyewitness, geneaologies, etc...
1) No civilisation prior to around 3500 BCE. So what? Who claims there is?
2) No faith required in science, since absolute belief is not required or encouraged. You are projecting your religious attitude towards belief onto science, which is an error.
3) There are many geological problems with a worldwide flood, there does not appear to have been one. The Genesis flood account has been connected with a known local flood in the region of present-day Iraq.
4) Some accuracy in the bible does not guarantee the accuracy in the rest of it. Eg. some historical accuracy about the history of the Jews should not be taken to verify other more extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
5) "NO EVIDENCE" -- except for the rock formation and fossil artifacts in question! Science says, if you want to learn about the world try looking at it. Written accounts are lower in the evidencial food-chain to physical evidence since people can lie and may be mistaken. If the bible says something that the rock doesn't, I'm gonna have to side with the rock. Either the Bible's wrong, or God is playing with my head and hiding from me, in which case screw him.
Does anyone realize that the only way something can be considered a real theory for science is that it can be _falsifiable_? Let's just take the definition of falsify from Merriam-Webster online:
Etymology: Middle English falsifien, from Middle French falsifier, from Medieval Latin falsificare, from Latin falsus transitive senses
1 : to prove or declare false
2 : to make false : as a: to make false by mutilation or addition <the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft> b: to represent falsely : MISREPRESENT
3 : to prove unsound by experience intransitive senses : to tell lies : LIE
So, what do we do if something is _verifiable_? Thereby saying that one can prove sound by experience?
I did it again. Being Christian and a Zionist, I cannot posit anything of substance. My comments are influenced by my faith and support for the Israelis. Rats.
(actually, i'm glad my opinions are influenced. as Amy has said above:
"If in the end I were wrong, at least I know I have made God happy by believing in Holy Scripture and Christian teaching. I have no desire to diss Christianity or Judiasm's holy books by not believing it."
that's the ticket, Amy and Johnny!)
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
"Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue."
and, of course you can look it up in the wiki, and google for more information. Believe me, I'm not saying anything in the least bit controversial.
Jez: You said: "1) No civilisation prior to around 3500 BCE. So what? Who claims there is?"
Are you serious? Your whole world view of a billions year old planet and a millions year old race is totally dependant on the premise of an evolving natural order. Are you saying that the cro magnon/neanderthal/piltdown man (snicker snicker) were dragging their knuckles until 4000 BC and suddenly they stood up and recited poetry? Built cities? Fabricated metallic fixtures? That is ridiculous. And it is completely UNprovable that any civilization existed prior to Mesopotamia, the location of the Biblical garden of Eden (gasp!).
As far as members of the Church courting openness to the (unorthodox) syncretism between evolution and Christianity, our own prophets fortold this is many places in the New Testament. Here's a key passage:
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thessalonians 2:9-12
The lie St. Paul refers to is here:
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Romans 1:23-25
The last days apostasy will include many Churchmen and church leaders.
I think that Jez would have us believe that Jesus was some sort of half evolved monkey man. That's ridiculous! Which is more believable-the Word of God (The Holy Bible) or the word of 'scientists'? I know I put my trust in the Word of God.
Amy, I was listening to Paul Harvey this morning and he said that thanks to the Kyoto protocols and Islamist groups like Hammas that automobiles will cease to exist and will be replace by goat-drawn carts and that the last commercial jet flight will take place in 2052. So the secular atheist liberals team up with the terrorist Islamists to outlaw western civilization. The libs want to save us from 'Global Warming' and the Islamists are just woman hating terrorists.
Artifacts from a civilisation have either lasted or they have not. There's a lot of ways man needed to advance to get from the point of dragging knuckles to leaving bits of pottery around. Given that this development took place before writing, progress was slow. Wattle-and-daub huts don't last like stone buildings do. But some artifacts survived nevertheless, such as 700,000-year-old man-made flint tools discovered in Suffolk, England.
Records of poetry are unavailable before writing, naturally. However, early evidence of musical instruments such as flutes date back 18,000 years, and drums even further.
Do you really think that man's first attempts at cities were so good that they survive to this day? I don't think so. I recommend you stop snickering and think about what evidence you should expect to see in the old earth model...
No Erica, men 2000 years ago were indistinguishable phenotypically from us.
Jez, in a nutshell, yes, that cardinal is an idiot. No, not really, but his pronounciation about ID not being scientific is.
The article in question is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html?_r=1
As a Catholic I can tell you that the Vatican newspaper does not mean it's doctrine endorsed by the Church. Darwinism is totally contrary to Catholicism and Christianity. The Catholic Catechism, which IS explicit in doctrine, says this about creation:
Creation:
I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION
282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" the two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN.G0015/__P19.HTM
Full Text
Popes until recently (excluding Pope Benedict who supports Intelligent Design) have always slammed and denounced Darwinism. Pope Leo, Pope Pius XII, etc. Pope John Paul II believed in Creation and evolution (which is not in keeping with strict Church opinion) by saying God created and let it all evolve from there. This is extremely problematic and I won't take the time to argue it here, but he spoke it ONLY as his opinion. The Popes who denounced evolution and Darwinism did so in encyclicals, which are equal to Catholic doctrine and official teaching.
So.... the article from the Vatican is full of crap. I'm a Catholic, I can say that with some insight. What the modern Church is trying to do is appear scientifically relevant in the world as a way of rebounding from the "Galileo" incident. I would suggest to the Church that what planet revolves around what and where isn't as morally deep as were we as human kind created or evolved from odd life forms. The Catholic Catechism is also very clear on the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, which of course totally supports creationism, i.e., Intelligent Design. Pope John Paul II spoke from his opinion, not official teaching when he spoke of evolution. He is wrong, which I'm sure he now knows. So is the author of the article (I think it's a cardinal) of the Vatican story.
Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
As a Catholic I have faith, faith in God as my creator, in my religion, and that there is still good in the human race (excluding the ACLU folks). By the mere definition the teachings of the Bible can not be proven, but accepted through faith.
Cascioli is nothing but a bitter old man who has turned his back on God. If this lawsuit succeeds, I guess the next litigation will be against people impersonating Santa Claus, the Eater Bunny & the Tooth Fairy!
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm
I do recommend that your readers check it out. Some extracts I enjoyed:
'283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." '
I like this because it does not dismiss the persuit or validity of science, as you are often in danger of doing.
'285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). ...'
I just love this, because it defines terms quite specifically and more succinctly than I would have.
It's good stuff, the first Catechism I have read, and I intend to read more. Thanks Amy.
What I don't get from it is an insistence on a literal 6 day creation. Can you be specific about how evolution conflicts with the catechism? Yes, it insists of course that God created heaven and earth out of nothing, but evolution does not preclude that. I read it, without difficulty, with a metaphysical creation in mind (ie, God creates laws of physics etc. with the intention of having creatures arise through mostly natural means); it doesn't seem to demand a God physically and directly creating actual mountains, squirrels, stars, night & day etc. The God of metaphysical creation is entirely consistent with an evolutionary model. (and it is not necessarily a Deist point of view).
Also, Amy, the cardinal and the late Pope were Catholic too... and, if I'm choosing opinions based on authority, I'd have to side with the late pope over you I'm afraid. I'm sure you're very spiritual and intelligent, but with the Pope it was a full time job! If the Pope can't even condone and confess Church teaching, what good is it/he?
Last thing: the meaning of the word "scientific" is subtly different from the word "true". Please, please look it up in whatever resource you respect, and discover that I'm telling the truth, ID is categorically NOT SCIENCE. There's really no room for debate on that. Unfalsifiable, therefore not science, QED.
Two words: Piltdown Man.
There is no accurrate way to date supposedly 18,000 year old artifacts without some kind of corroboration -of which Genesis is abudantly full of. Carbon dating on its own is a spurrious at best way of ESTIMATING age (how'd they come up with a nice round number like 18k? LOL!). There are just too many accuracies in the Bible to dismiss, of which I named several, and since I went to Iraq and saw with my own two eyes the ziggurat at Talil Airfield, the ruins of ancient Babylon, the plane of Shinar, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (mentioned by name in Genesis 2:10-14) - physical evidence corroborated by both Biblical narrative and archeological evidences. Its just too overwhelming for a smart man to dismiss out of hand.
The book of Genesis is the oldest account of the origins of the universe and the human family - and far from being the product of "underdeveloped technologies" it has MORE, not less credibility for the plain and obvious reason that the writers were CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL EVENTS than modern redactors. How can you not see this? How can we doubt Abraham's version of ancient history when he was contemporary with Noah who was contemporary with the first Generation of the human family? How can a 'scientist' living 5,000 years after the fact have keener insights than the actual participants of the events themselves? What conceit! Could that kind of testimony hold up in a modern court of law?
Surely you know that the ancient Sumerians, Indians (India) and Chinese all tell of a world wide flood?
I have already explained (to which you gave no reply) that the Christian prophets foretell of a great apostasy at the end up time when the antichrist is ascendant - a falling away which will by no meams exclude the heirarchy of the Church (recall, it was the Jewish religious leaders who rejected, condemned and handed over Christ to be crucified).
The system of ethics that flow from evolution (in particular, the pernicious doctrines of social darwinism invoked by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, to justify their crimes against humanity) can never be reconciled with the system of ethics that flow from Christianity. It is a scandal of unimaginable proportions for Church leaders to attempt a synchretism with such antichristian beliefs.
The attempt to synchretise evolution with Christianity renders cardinal tenets such as Original Sin, the Promise of a Messiah, the Sabbath rest, and other key beliefs as fictitious inventions of the Jews. The two systems CAN NOT agree.
Even if the 'old earth' theory were correct, (which would contradict Genesis) the creation of Adam and Eve as literal people (without simian ancestry) would be necessary to sustain Christian truth.
The reality is that people who do not want to face an all powerful God capable of fashioning the cosmos from nothing in just 6 days feel more comfortable behind a smoke screen of zeros (billions of years this, millions ofyears that) than before the All Knowing One who is Infinite in Power and purity. The very prospect that an intelligent Being with that much power exists is frightening to person who would see that All Powerful One as a corrupt, sinful person like themselves - and not as He truly is: merciful, compassionate, gentle and patient. And THAT is the God revealed by Jesus Christ.
Also, the Sabbath loses all meaning (which is utterly offensive to Jews) if God did not create the world in 6 days (resting on the 7th, or Sabbath). Gradual evolution destroys the moral foundations of Christianity. Either Adam was a literal man, or he wasn't. Either God created the world in 6 days, or he didn't. Either God is all-powerful and involved with His creation, or He isn't. As the prophet Elijah said to the Israelites when they attempted a similar synchretism between the Canaanite god Ba'al (literally, a god of nature) and the LORD:
"How long will you straddle the issue? If the LORD is God, follow him; if Baal is god, follow him". (1 Kings 18:21). Those familiar with that account know that the Lord answered Elijah's challenge by consuming the prophet's sacrifice by fire from heaven while the nature worshipping priests of Baal looked on in astonishment.
If there is a God, surely he will commend those who held steadfastly to his word; if not, I have risked nothing by teaching my children the ethics of Jesus instead of the ethics of darwinism.
What about false relics? Prooves nothing.
"There is no accurrate way to date supposedly 18,000 year old artifacts..."
not true. Sites are dated by several methods. Why do they so often agree?
"how'd they come up with a nice round number like 18k? LOL!"
what do you want, morning or afternoon? So what if the date is +/-5%, even 10%, it's still older than 6000 years, so a problem for the young earth model.
"How can we doubt Abraham's version of ancient history when he was contemporary with Noah who was contemporary with the first Generation of the human family?"
Abraham didn't write Genesis. You probably think Moses wrote it. The catechism has this to say about Genesis: "From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources." I don't accept that these are witness accounts, nor do I expect they are meant to be entirely literal/historical.
"How can a 'scientist' living 5,000 years after the fact have keener insights than the actual participants of the events themselves? What conceit! Could that kind of testimony hold up in a modern court of law?"
We've got better tools and theories now. It's not as much as 5000 years, but courts are accepting new scientific evidence on decades-old cases, because of improvements in technology. Why the quotes for 'scientist'?!
"Surely you know that the ancient Sumerians, Indians (India) and Chinese all tell of a world wide flood?"
Yep, and they all feature their respective Gods. Is that not a problem for you as a monotheist? Still no physical evidence for it (which would be expected). It could all be a miracle, a flood hidden from science but revealed through mythology across the world.
"The system of ethics that flow from evolution..."
This again? Why do any ethics at all flow from evolution? Is it due to the "godlessness"? Now imagine evolution with the metaphysical-creator Christian God I described. Why wouldn't ethics "flow" from Him?
"The attempt to synchretise evolution with Christianity renders cardinal tenets such as Original Sin, the Promise of a Messiah, the Sabbath rest, and other key beliefs as fictitious..."
Why Promise of Messiah? What's so critical about Sabbath rest? Original sin might be a problem. Consider a more poetic interpretation of the story in Eden.
"the creation of Adam and Eve as literal people (without simian ancestry) would be necessary to sustain Christian truth."
Why? Are you limiting God's ability to create?
You talk to me about a merciful, compassionate, gentle and patient God while accusing me of trying to comfort *myself*? 10/10 for flair and style, I suppose.
the promise of messiah thing does interest me... is gen 3:15 right, it seems to be about the serpent's punishment.
Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of the Messiah:
The seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, who has brought death upon the human family by his deceit. The serpent is the figure of evil and his punishment is to be crushed by the woman's seed (Christ, born of the Virgin Mary) which will crush the Messiah's heel (crucifixion). The figure is further developed by typology as God covers Adam and Eve in sheep skin (meaning he had to sacrifice an innocent sheep to cover their nakedness), a typology that is echoed throughout the old and new testaments (the Passover lamb, Christ as Lamb of God).
Your attempt to trivialize the Sabbath is deeply offensive. It is HOLY SCRIPTURE, not trite Jewish poetry. Without the Sabbath, the Chosen people lose their identity. You CAN'T pick and choose from the whole. The Sabbath is critical to the self revelation of God.
Please, Jez, I am quite familiar with the epistemology of Gensis. Moses is most certainly the senior editor/chief compiler. You really have completely misunderstood the majesty of Genesis because you dismiss a priori its plainly provable historicity. Too bad! You are missing out. :-(
'scientist' in quotes is because of the hypocrisy of forbidding the scientific value of ID while brazenly intruding into the supernatural and the mystical with banal proscriptions against the miraculous. Can't have it both ways.
I'm too tired of going over the obvious again and again. You just don't want to see. Children can see there was a world wide flood. The rounded rocks neatly piled in the Mohavi Desert of Southern California testify that they had been waterborne and have carved the valley by the force of their impetus. Or perhaps piltdown man bulldozed them with bronze age flints? When i was 8 years old I used to dig for trilobites at the peaks of the Allegehny Mountains in Maryland. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the only way thousands of deep sea fossils can wind up at the top of a mountain is if there was water to carry them there. Or maybe they are just poetic trilobites?
The Catechism does not specifically condemn the belief in evolution, but it does fully endorse both Scripture and Creation. Scientific studies buttress the fact that God is creator is the Catechism's point.
The fact that you imply I am anti-science and that Catholism is up to speed with your understanding of science is insulting. You said of the catechism:
"I like this because it does not dismiss the persuit or validity of science, as you are often in danger of doing."
I do not dismiss science, in fact I embrace it. Science CANNOT prove evolution. Period. It does not. It validates creation. There's nothing to fear in science. That doesn't mean, however, that all scientists are open to truth and that they are not seeking an agenda contrary to religion. It's a shame the two have to be divided.
Believe the opinions of the popes, you atheist you! Pope Benedict XVI is in favor of Intelligent Design. Then there's Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, It is not until recent history (the past 50-75 years) that Popes considered evolution. In my opinion this is a reaction to the "Galileo" problem....I would suggest that what planet revolves around what and where isn't as morally deep as were we as human kind created or evolved from odd life forms.
And you misunderstand the Popes opinion.... what is said in an encyclical is a matter of reaffirming established truth and docrtine. Everything else is opinion. Pope JPII spoke on this subject as opinion because he could not speak as such under offical teaching, or he would have issued a Papal Encyclical on the subject.
I stand with Papal encyclicals which stand against evolution. I also find it funny that you finally decide to listen to a Pope, but so be it. Even so, the Pope you're choosing to stand with, although a wonderful pope, didn't stand officially with Christianity on his theory of evolution.
Are you reading the Cathechism to truly learn and grow into being a better Catholic? Or, are you studying it to find a wrinkle to prove your point?
If the latter, you shall find no enlightenment. If you cannot look to your heart from which the Cathechism comes, you shall find no rest, no shelter, no Holy Spirit -- you'll have missed the boat (so to speak).
Again, you shall find no answer to what you seek.
"No matter where you go, there you are."
You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of how it works. You use the term "theory" as if there's some higher, more certain level that science can bestow on a subject. I've already tried to explain it too many times, you either can't understand me or don't believe me. Sorry if you find that insulting, but it's still true that your ridiculous critiques of evolution, geology, cosmology etc. (eg. the erosion argument above, consider lava flow and tectonic movement) demonstrate either a contempt, distrust or ignorance of science.
I appreciate the authority of the Pope to describe the Catholic point of view. I take his authority on that matter to be higher even than yours, that is all. I understand that Papal infallibility only kicks in when they make these special statements, and I knew that John-Paul's statement wasn't one of those... but still, if he doesn't believe all that s**t, why should anyone?
Linked: I read teh Catechism to truly learn what the considered catholic theology is. I neither want to bend it to say what I want it to, nor do I require myself to believe it. I'm not a catholic.
Nothin' wrong with that, unless someone holds scientists in higher esteem and position than God. At that point, out come the "you're too sooopid 'cause you believe in God and Jesus and Faith" ... blah, blah, blah, ad infenitum.
I think we need a healthy dose of scientists are looney!
:)
I take God's authority over scientists, and appreciate that even more than others appreciate the Pope saying things that "align" with their beliefs. The hard part of all this Catholicism is to know, in your heart, that often times the _man_ becomes too much _between_ God and His sheep ...
There's the rub!
Scientists are looney! (John Cleese voice there)
I mean, let's be honest, the Ministry of Silly Walks! My oh my! :)
Just reviewed what I wrote. Meant to write 'ad infinitum' from infinite and somehow left the 'e' in there ...
Seems I missed the 't' in stooopid ... although, sooopid looks kinda "scooby-like" ... eh, shoulda read the comment first ... :)
Amy understands the two useages of "theory"; one to explain the motions of nature by constructing a system of symbols or metrics to illustrate the principle (ie, the theory of gravity); the other to suggest a possible explanation of some that is not yet proven. Evolution CLEARLY falls into the 2nd category as there is no proof anywhere (the fossil record is deafeningly silent) for the assertion of transmutation of species.
I think her point about the eroding seashore was that if she accepted some scientific theories uncritically, they would lead her to bizarre conclusions (such as transmutation of species, natural selection, et al). In fact, Amy is very astutely asserting her confidence in Itelligent Design citing the overriding (and mysterious) providence of the Ultimate Intelligence in His ability to maintain the ecological balance in nature regardless of the progress/ignorance of science.
Whether it is gravity or the intervention of the Almighty (which science cannot disprove) that holds the waves back from surging over the shores, both explanations require faith. And some have placed their faith in a source that ignores a full one third of human existence (spirit) and offers no comfort to the grieving, no hope for the oppressed, no solace for the brokenhearted, no moral clarity for the confused, no promise of grace and redemption to the lost, no brighter tommorow based on anything other than nature's brute forces selecting the fittest to survive.
Personally, I am encouraged by your intrigue with people of faith and the Church, and I welcome your probes, challenges and questions because i believe that my God loves you dearly and wants to reveal Himself to you finally and fully in the way that will be most effective for you.
Briefly, when I spoke before about carbon dating, if I wasn't clear, I was speaking about ALL methods (supposedly scientific) that determine the age of the earth, the origin of species, etc. If millions and billions of years have passed, wouldn't the substantive makeup of the item be altered irrevocably? When you put milk in a microwave it changes the very elements and they cannot be restored. Why is this notion untrue with whatever objects scientists use or study to determine age? Jez, we're talking MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years.
As for your newfound respect for the Papacy, I trust you are now celibate [assuming you are not married... the way you have talked in the past about propositioning women I can only hope you've filled in your wife on your activities ;) ] and not using artifical birth control, in keeping with Papal encyclicals.
Pope John Paul II was an AMAZING Pope. He spoke his OPINION about evolution, not definitive teaching. This is one of the areas left up to the faithful to use their own discernment and decide for themselves. Pope Benedict XVI sides with Intellegent Design. Do you respect HIS opinion as well, or only the Popes whose opinions coincide with your own?
By the way, the Popes who do believe in evolution believe in theistic evolution. You do not. So unless you're willing to acknowledge God in creation as they do, you might want to not appear so obvious by trying to claim that the Popes are on your side. They are not.
Johnny, anyone can simplify a problem so much that the principle looks silly. By ignoring all the actions which counter the effect of erosion, Amy did just that. It's not a fair critique.
And so what anyway... science lives on problems. It's not, and isn't presented as, a complete answer. Firstly, it only answers certain sorts of question, and secondly it is a work in progress. That doesn't stop it from being useful.
I don't think the distinction you make between "theories" is useful. Is gravity a perfect description? Has it been varified? How would you go about making certain of it?
These are trick questions, designed to illustrate that the property of verification introduced earlier is a red herring. Scientific theories are good so long as they describe phenomena and are not falsified. In practice, nobody spends a lot of time doubting things like gravity (though they spend lots of time and effort refining it); fewer and fewer people are doubting evolution for the same reason.
(A theory which cannot be falsified might be correct, but can never be scientific.)
Science cannot disprove a continually intervening Almighty being the metaphysical explanation for all of physics. Even if that's true, it's not science, because science cannot disprove it. Philosophically, gravity can be disproved: eg. just show me two masses which repel each other.
Amy: if the object is altered and its age undetectable, why would independent measurements of its age agree? Isn't it unlikely that the changes you think of would alter all of the readings in the same way??
Actually, even microwaving a sample doesn't alter the elements. There's no fusion or fission going on in there, if it was your microwave would get very much hotter!! "darling, this fish pie is hotter than the surface of the sun. That new fission microwave is great!"
Ah now I may have been propositioning women, and sneakily using knowledge of their cycle to better my chances, but I was only hoping for a kiss. I think that's allowable. And like I said before, I'm not a catholic, but if I want an authoratative description of Catholic Theology, the pope is gonna be my first choice.
There you go with the sides again Amy! I didn't say the pope was on "my side", just that the idea of theistic evolution cannot be as ridiculous and childish as you dismiss it to be, given that so many people your respect condone it.