True enough on evolution; Catholics especially (among Christians) tend to be receptive to arguments that allow for a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and the allowance of evolution to explain man's physical evolution. While one can hold that the world truly was created in 6 actual days (and the fossil history that suggests otherwise is either a work of the Devil or God's sense of whimsy) and be a Catholic (I don't know of anything in the catechism to prohibit such a view), it is certainly not a common view among Catholics. We hold that scriptural has several layers to it: historical truth, pedagogical truth, and so forth. The best explanation I've seen on how Catholics view/ought to view Scripture can be found in Leo XIII's encyclical Proventissimus Deus, which is on the Vatican's site.

As for "Jesus saves", everytime I see it I'm reminded of the Dungeons and Dragons convention where they were selling bumper stickers that read "Jesus Saves -- takes half damage", which still gives me a chuckle.

Just because an expression is Christian does not mean it has to be simpleminded; I read Aquinas and am struck by two things -- his largeness fo spirit and his ability to make subtle disntinctions among all the Aristotelian/Platonic concepts (forms, essences, accidents, etc.). He's a fine thinker, well educated and large minded. That being said, he certainly holds certain things to be true and certain things to be false.

We live in an age where, in Benedict XVI's phrase, there is a tyranny of relativism. To proclaim something as "truth" is seen as either bad form, or intellectually inadmissible. Yet we live in a world that certainly doesn't behave as if there is no truth -- jump off a high building, and truth is, you'll get killed. For some reason, we accept "truth" in the physical world but reject it out of hand in the intellectual world. Why is that? Perhaps it is a kind of humility that we think our own powers of reason so faulty that we cannot assert any truth with confidence, but I certainly wouldn't want to live my life asserting there is no truth, because then I am incapable of walking any kind of path. We assert physical truth, and are agnostic about metaphysical truth? That's an empty world, to be sure.

Several things; first, let me say how enlightening I have found Robert's posts about his conversion. Early on, I posted a rather ugly comment about my association (by family) with the Catholic church. As the months have gone on, I have been tremendously happy to read the "upside" of Catholicism, as it is my heritage.
Jumping off a tall building you will be killed. Yes, some things are just true and some not. Our current state of western discussion troubles me greatly as we seem to be forced into saying that maybe you might not be killed so, go ahead if it suits you. In fact, anyone that tells you otherwise is some kind of (insert slur here.)
I have been accused many, many times of viewing things in a "black or white" context. In our own personal relationships, I could not abide stauatory rape... I took a rather bold stance which caused no end of "problem" for those that thought me rather shallow minded. After all, I needed to take the "circumstances" and the "devotion" into account. Phooey, said I; right is right and wrong is wrong and I fought my corner like a blessed pit bull...
I also think the short discussion about evolution has probably been the most illuminating I have ever read. Yes, there was a big bang but, God directed it. I'm willing to buy into that or at least consider it. More on evolution from a Catholic viewpoint would be greatly appreciated.
I know that when people are at funerals of their loved ones they can make all kinds of things out of the event. I will say however, that when my father's ashes were poured into the Penobscott Bay and I watched a million tiny sparkles rising, I knew he was headed to a reuniting with the universe. I guess that's as close as I can get right now to a belief in God.

Wiki's discussion isn't a bad place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

My understanding of science -- which is admittedly limited -- is that it is tending toward Monogenism at least with regard to an Eve; that all human life originated from one human mother, but I haven't read much on evolution in the last 10 years or so. My understanding, too, is that evolutionary theory is now generally in agreement that human life as we know it originated in one p1ace (Africa) and then spread throughout the world (i.e., man did not spring up in several locations at the same time), but I don't claim to be current.

Polygenism seems to me is a harder theological case to reconcile with Genesis.

I myself don't see any contradiction between Genesis and evolution if we assume a primordial human couple suddenly made self-aware by a benevolent God, and that the gifts of understanding and awareness he bestowed upon them to be largely spiritual in nature (Adam is generally not held to be a brute, but to be created with a much greater understanding than we have, who have subsequently had our minds darkened by sin).

That being said, I do not discount the possibility that indeed, it was all created in 6 days, because certainly I attribute to God the power to do so if he chose, and do not claim to understand his motivations beyond asserting that he loves us. It could all be a fabulous jest that we do not understand, but is merely meant to keep us all occupied. I don't reject that possibility, as utterly unlikely as it seems.

"What if the label said "Jesus saves." Would you view that as "pop spirituality" or something else?"

"Something else".

It may indeed be trite and gimmicky, but it has a foundation in meaning that the mushy phrase "Recognize that you are the truth" does not. "Recognize that you are the truth" is "pop spirituality" in the same way we speak of "pop psychology"; a slick little motto that sounds profound but is shallow, pulled out of a sketchy acquaintance with the principles of the philosophy in question, watered down through countless reiterations in self-help books, banal and fuzzy and mindlessly 'affirming'.

It comes out of and is attached to no recognisable tradition; it can be spouted off equally by an air-headed vaguely-Christian, a Western-type Buddhist, an agnostic, a 'I'm spiritual but not religious' type or even an atheist. It can be defined however you want to define it; it can mean whatever you want it to mean. It involves no affirmation of doctrine or dogma, it doesn't require you to choose one option and reject others.

"Jesus Saves" is trite, but it has meaning. If you say this, you are committing yourself to a definite meaning, and all the corollaries that follow on from it: that we need saving, that there is a saviour, that there are not other saviours, that this saviour is Jesus, and so forth.

There are consequences to this that are not there for "Recognize that you are the truth".

Heh... "Jesus Saves" was a neon sign that was a landmark during my childhood. A church along route 110 in Melville, NY had the "Jesus Saves" neon sign. We used to use it as a landmark like "about 1 mile past Jesus Saves."
Anyone that thinks that putting a neon sign out for religion will increase their viability in an intellectual sense is a moron. Never the less, I hope their sign is still there.

My point about the teabag and had it said, "Jesus Saves" is that you may have dismissed it pop spirituality, but I doubt it would have set you off enough to write a post on the "corrosive effects on the soul" such things have.

The comment above proves my point. "Jesus Saves" is Christian hence True, and therefore not "pop spirituality." "You are Truth" is not Christian, hence not true, and therefore AT BEST "pop spirituality."

"It comes out of and is attached to no recognisable (sic) tradition." Funny, I recognized it right away. Given that it was on a bag of green tea helped, but it is clearly Eastern, probably Taoist as a direct translation, though perhaps not from the I-Ching itself, and certainly in line with Zen. So if you don't recognize it, it comes from no recognizable tradition. I guess that is literally true in this case. But does that mean that all other religions (or traditions) should stop printing their slogans on their teabags while Christians go about printing theirs?

'I fail to see any conflict between the questions of "how did it work" and "why did it happen".'

There isn't - or there shouldn't be - unless of course you are one of the millions of people in the world (10s of millions?) who hold the literal truth of every word in the Bible. In fact you can make a decent creation story about the lead up to the big bang. But calling into question the literal interpretation of Genesis is a problem for a lot of Christians. Hence the mess we've been in ever since the Scopes trial. (Look up the problems the intersexed have in this country… intersex births are almost always treated with surgery in the US to "assign" a gender either male of female. The rest of the world doesn't do that. Comes back to the same thing – only 2 sexes were created in Genesis, anything else must be stamped out.)

I think I know you well enough through your writing Robert to know you aren't one of those literal interpreters. You think more about your faith than any ten people I know (combined). If I gave the impression that I thought you were closed minded about things, I apologize. But even Martin Luther had his writing twisted by those who came after him.

The Vatican Observatory is an interesting organization. It was started around the same time as Galileo was doing his work, - actually before he published any of his writings and maybe a lot sooner, and his findings were confirmed by that body before his trial. In trying to find the date of the founding I did run across an interesting fact that Galileo cited Augustine's writing in his defense. (But to no avail).

And yes, I did read Aquinas where you wrote Augustine. I spent more time than I care to remember struggling with Aquinas at one point in my life. I obviously haven't recovered yet.

OK, another long post - another mu.nu error message... I give up.

ZD,

I won't overstate the case, but within Catholic tradition, one usually ends up as an admirer of Augustine (and hence Plato), or of Aquinas (and hence Aristotle). If you struggle with Aquinas, it may be that you are, at heart, an Augustinian, and vice versa.

There is (unfortunately) no Hogwarts style sorting hat to determine what parts of Catholic tradition work for a certain person; I used to not care for Augustine so much when I was young but am drawn to him more as I get older.

Protestant, especially Lutheran, tradition, tends toward the Augustinian rather than the Scholastic tradition of Aquinas. If you like Luther's writing, you'd probably like Augustine.

Although of the two, Aquinas is the sunnier one, who ascribes more power to human reason's ability to perceive God than Augustine does. Aquinas is therefore more a friend of science.

But like I said, there is no sorting hat. Certain writers appeal to one for their style as much as their substance. Aquinas is a hard read to the modern eye because he assumes one is intimately familiar with Greek philosophy, expecially Aristotle; the Summa is really a work for professional philosophers; I don't claim to be able to assess it on its merits. He certainly seems bold in his assertions of what can be known of God through reason. I admite him more for his prayers and hymns; they are truly beautiful.

Augustine is much more approachable, and I would even say psychological, in his writing, particularly the Confessions; though I always find his writing to be a bit brooding.

Augustine is Beethoven to Aquinas's Bach, if you will.

"You are Truth" is not Christian, hence not true

More like, "You are Truth" is not true, hence not Christian.

That is to say, Christians, whether we be RC, another liturgical tradition, Evangelical, whatever, hold as part of our faith that there is such a thing as absolute truth, that God is the author of all truth and is, in fact, by His very nature truth itself, and that all truth is revealed to us by God (whether revealed generally through nature or specifically through scripture). We also therefore believe that anything that contradicts the truth that God has revealed to us is necessarily UNtrue.

Thank you, all of you, very much for your comments.