(Note: if anyone finds my traditional use of inclusive-male pronouns unsatisfying, let's chat in private. My e-mail works.)

Just some caffeinated ruminations:

I find a lot of credibility in some of the basic (read: untainted by irreligious ideologies) precepts of evolutionary theory. I was reflecting some minutes ago about how natural selection might shed some interesting, non-heretical light on our relationship with the earth and with God.

We are taught and we believe that we were created in God's image. The implications are enormous--as the Psalms say, "instead you made us a little less than a god," and in Genesis, Man is granted all the things of the earth for his well-being: the beasts in the fields and the fruits of the trees.

The theory of natural selection is not entirely different, but it does appear to tell the story in a reverse order. You see, the gifts of the earth were not so much given to us as we were given to them; or another way of putting it, of all of our most ancient predecessors, those few (perhaps, most properly, only two) most suited to "receiving the gifts" were left alive and permitted to live, against the usual habit of extinction.

If natural selection is true, it is very interesting how it may be given meaning by an intellect of faith. By this I mean the following: in a way, Man was created "in the image" of the earth as much as of God. Natural selection can be compared to the process by which soft clay slowly settles itself into a cast, without violent pushing or pressing. Inadequate clay--with chunks of dryness--only settles in some parts of the mold, or none at all. But the most supreme clay, carefully made, will take its shape from every inch of the cast it is set upon. Thus we, albeit still fragile fleshy pink and brown creatures, have curiously spread all over the world, and if we were wont to survive nuclear fallout, we could... by the grace of God, we make the cockroaches jealous.

Hence when I argue that Man was created "in the image" of the earth, I mean it in a different way than when we say he is created in the image of God, but they are related, since God created both. I speak only of the sublime relationship between man and the earth.

We have technology, which has a dual cause and a dual role. God gave us intellects and wills, but ultimately it is sin which we can "thank" for technology--the first of which being clothes. Hence it is that technology serves a blessed and unfortunate purpose alike; it enables us to cover the earth as God commanded, and it also divides us from the very earth we live on. The earth is the cast, we are the clay, and sin is involved in our disconnectedness with the cast and hence with the time before the Fall.

We pray to God but we no longer walk with him in the garden; now the garden is subject to us, but that is the ideal after the Fall; more likely, we stay out of the garden entirely, perhaps paying it no heed as we zoom past it on the freeway.

Some people are notable exceptions, of course--made possible by the sacrifice of Christ--who often but not always find homes in our monasteries and convents. Here I would like to point out the profound irony of the phrase "leaving the world," so often erroniously applied to the religious life. In fact it is by our high technology that we leave the world and find isolation. It is our suburban American high school students who have discovered an isolation far more profound than the wildest mountain hermit--away from tradition, away from nature, away from faith, away from culture--away even from the basic comforts of non-genitalized physical contact and brotherly love.

It is the ascetic, on the other hand, who does not leave the world but discovers the earth, and involves his very person within the mystical truth of a fact which even the hardest atheist cannot deny--the human species is best molded to the earth; all the earth. And in my opinion, the simplicity of life of the ascetic approaches the "walk in the garden with God," something like a faith-informed Rousseauian blessedness in prayer for the world and in waiting for the bridegroom.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003

Answers

top

-- . (skooby@skooby.do), December 02, 2003.

It's funny, I was just reading Pope JPII's Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

In it he writes that the difference between the Buddist concept of nirvana and asceticism is that nirvana is a state of indiffence to the world; whereas, asceticism is an embrace of the world.

Interesting thoughts.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 02, 2003.

Hi Skoobouy :)

Interesting. In a discussion on the eucharist was reading thru one of Augustine's writings on the Psalms, and he discusses on worshipping at His footstool. How can we worship the footstool, when that is the earth. Then goes on to say God created man from the earth, and then Jesus from Mary. So a relation there of us as created from earth, and Jesus from an earthen vessel... so in a round about way man being made in the image of God and earth might work with that.

I would call myself a theistic evolutionist, though if I ever get the energy to read on Intelligent Design maybe I will change on that count. :)

Marcia

-- Marcia Dietrich (marciadietrich@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

Make allowance for the plain truth that Jesus is not created, Marcia. He is eternal and without beginning or end. Mary came from the human race; but was conceived free of sin by God's grace so His Son could be served worthily. He never assumed any sin of Adam. Only the DNA.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

For a very god example of what I'm getting at in terms of "American high school students," go see Elephant (if you're an adult). That is exactly what my high school was like.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.

edward wrote: Make allowance for the plain truth that Jesus is not created, Marcia. He is eternal and without beginning or end. Mary came from the human race; but was conceived free of sin by God's grace so His Son could be served worthily. He never assumed any sin of Adam. Only the DNA. ___________

I was just passing on what I had read from Augustine and relating to Skoobouy's idea. I never said that God the Trinity or Christ as the second person of the Trinity is not eternal. Jesus' humanity does have a beginning in time, is related to creation and thus the incarnation. That is how Mary can be the Mother of God and not eternal herself. Never said anything to the effect that Jesus was born in sin, no more than Augustine did in relating Jesus' humanity back to the earth.

-- Marcia Dietrich (marciadietrich@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

Not sure if a bump works on this board, but giving it a try. BUMP...

-- Marcia Dietrich (marciadietrich@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

marcia, youre looking at the new questions section of the board. go to the top of the index, and click on NEW ANSWERS. and yes, a bump does work here.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 08, 2003.