What, pray tell, is your point? Does it really matter what God was thinking when the first eukaryotes evolved?

And before you go knocking the Church’s role in science, remember that it was a Jesuit priest who came up with the big bang theory. The Vatican is one of the largest funders of scientific research in the world, and many clergymen have made many significant contributions to science. Remember Mendel? He was a monk, was he not?

For the Church to throw out the Old Testament would make about as much sense as the US throwing out the Declaration of Independence. The Old Testament is God’s first and original covenant with His people, and the foundation of all law and morality. In fact, Jesus did not add or change a single law; He only explained how the Old Testament laws should be understood and applied. The New Testament would be worthless without the Old Testament, since all we would have then would be explanations of laws we’d thrown out. Not very valuable, is that?

So being special means we have to be completely independent of all other life?

The Church does describe humanity as something special, mainly because we alone among the lifeforms on this planet are capable of controlling the environment and changing the world around us. No other species can shape the world the way humans have. In the eyes of the Church, this gives us a special status and also a special responsibility to protect and care for our planet. This view is backed up in Genesis when God gave Adam "dominion" over the earth. "Dominion" means "to rule," which means that we are free to harness the natural resources around us as long as we take responsible care of them.

I think it’s common sense that we are in fact special compared to other lifeforms on this planet, but I still don’t understand what this has to do with the evolution of eukaryotes.

I think you must have a very strong imagination, as I am almost certain you’re stretching this too far. The evolution of eukaryotes was no doubt important in the story of life on earth, but to say "that one half of that fusion is special (in the eyes of God) but the other half is there for us to use as we want to (but in a responsible manner)." is to say that humanity existed as a species even at this early stage. This, of course, is false.

I suppose you would also imagine that saying that humans and apes share a common ancestry is like saying that Strom Thurmond and Martin L King, Jr. are first cousins.

And you explained my point perfectly: "we are nothing special apart from our well developed brain compared to other species" Exactly! Our intelligence and technology gives us an ability to control and manage our planet that, if we care about its future, we should use responsibly.

However, to say "that the existence of the supernatural is merely a function of our brain." makes about as much sense as saying that the existence of helium is only a function of our brain.

Your mistake is that you consider the soul to be a physical property. By its very nature the soul is spiritual, and thus is not tied to any particular physical location within the body.

I personally believe that all life has a soul, since it doesn’t make sense to me how it could possibly be any other way. In a scientific sense, there is no real difference on a chemical or molecular level between something being alive and something being inanimate; it’s all just chemical reactions of one sort or another. However, there is a very real distinction between life and non-life. Each part of a living thing, on its own, cannot in even the wildest definition be considered alive, but when put together in the right way, life exists. Also, consider a freshly-dead organism that has not yet begun to decay. It contains all of the cellular and molecular parts of life, but is not alive. There is a very fine line between life and non-life that cannot easily be explained by conventional means. That is why I think that all life must have souls. I consider the soul to be the essential spiritual component that makes something alive, makes all the assembled pieces spring to life. It simply doesn’t make sense to me how it could be any other way.

As for mitochondria, certainly we cannot survive without them, but on the whole our living bodies are comprised of very many non-living components. That doesn’t surprise me at all, and I still think you’re trying in vain to draw a theological conclusion that simply isn’t there.

As for Galileo, that is a perfect example of why the Spanish government should never have been allowed to interfere with Church affairs!

Once again I believe you are drawing conclusions that simply aren’t there. First of all, don’t pretend you mean this to be a biological discussion when your entire point from the beginning was to argue against the existence of a deity; this has been a theological debate from the start and remains so. Secondly, whether or not a soul exists has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine by its very definition works solely on the physical properties of life; the soul by its very definition is spiritual and thus another matter entirely.

I agree; the synthesis of early mitochondria-like bacteria with prokaryotic organisms to form the first eukaryotes probably was one of the most important events in the evolution of life on earth. Once again, however, I fail to see any theological implications.

I already told you why I think all life has a soul; it simply doesn’t make sense to me any other way.

I concede your point as far as medicine having to do with more than just the physical. Surely it can have emotional and mental effects as well, but certainly not spiritual. As the soul is spiritual by definition, it lies outside the reach of medicine.

You’re right; I have not yet adequately defined what the spiritual is. In you example of a priest comforting a person, it would be the same emotional/mental effect as a doctor doing the same. But if the priest prays for or with the person, that is a spiritual effect.

It’s hard to define but to me spirituality generally means invoking divine or miraculous power that is clearly not of the physical world. For example, when I speak to God in prayer, I know I am not talking to anything physical. It’s hard for a non-believer to understand, since to an atheist it is impossible for something to exist without being physical in nature. Of course, to a believer, the spiritual is just as real as the physical. I normally tend to think of it as two parallel and intertwined worlds: a physical world and a spiritual world.

As for your scripture quote, that passage is from Genesis, not 1 Corinthians, as you labeled it. I still don’t see mitochondria as posing a problem, however, especially if all life has souls or at least some form of spirit. Considering that we are nothing but a bunch of inanimate parts that are somehow very much alive, I simply don’t see how that can be possible without a soul.

I think this is a really good thread. I must say that I am impressed by both of you. This has been a civil dialect and argument. You both make good points. Keep the post going, you both really have me going Hmm–thinking.

My hat off to you both.

The Church’s official position is that animals have a spirit sufficient to keep them alive but this spirit does not equal a true soul. I myself have never really understood the difference, and from what I’ve studied of animal intelligence, I doubt if there is one. It is one of very few disagreements that I hold with the Vatican, but both the Church and myself do agree that life cannot exist without spirit.

Whether or not animals have souls is in fact a very minor issue in Catholic theology. The Church sees its primary role as moral, and whether or not animals have souls does not affect moral law or what is right and wrong. Indeed, it probably affects us not at all. That is probably why the Church hasn’t addressed the issue at all in quite a few centuries. The Church has its hands full trying to deal with the rampant immorality in this world.

I think you’re mistaken on a fundamental point concerning mitochondria, and that is by saying that it means we are dependent on another animal. When mitochondria first evolved, this might have been true, but today, the DNA in mitochondria is entirely human, and no genes of the organelle’s bacterial ancestry remain. Today it is just like any other organelle, no longer another animal.

I already explained earlier what that passage of Genesis means to me. Man’s special place in the world is due to our intelligence, technology, and ability to control the world around us in a way that no other species can. Common sense tells us that we do in fact have a certain power over our environment and a sense of responsibility tells us to use that power responsibly.

There is plenty of evidence that some sort of spiritual existence does in fact exist. Miracles, which by definition cannot be explained naturally, are only the beginning.

To me, "Let us make man in our image" cannot be physical in any way; since God is spirit, He has no physical appearance. Thus "image" has to be some sort of symbol for something other than a physical appearance. I personally think it means that, like God, man has an intellect and a sense of morality. Man is clearly not nearly as intelligent nor anywhere close to morally perfect, as God is, but humanity is still capable of reason and has a sense of right and wrong. It is also worth noting that the Bible does not say that man was the only creature created in this image, nor does it say that all animals were created in some other image. All it says is that man was created in that image. Again from what I’ve studied of zoology, I think at least a few species are also capable of such intellect and morality. However, humanity alone still possesses the capability to save or destroy the planet, which is why we were given the responsibility of caring for it.

My earlier statements on mitochondrial DNA were based on what I learned in high school. A quick glance at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria) has shown that you are in fact correct; mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleic DNA. I’m not sure if this means they are a separate species altogether, instead of just two lifeforms that have merged into one, but even if they are I don’t see a theological problem. Humans being dependent on another lifeform is not unique at all, and such symbiotic relationships can be found everywhere in nature. For example, we are incapable of digesting food without the help of bacteria that live in our intestines. So even if mitochondria are a separate organism, they’re not unique in our dependence on them for survival.

As I said before, the exact nature of mitochondria makes no theological difference. Even if it does turn out to be a completely independent organism that lives inside us in a symbiotic relationship, that’s far from unique. I already gave the bacteria living in our gut as an example. The simple fact is that, like all other life, we are dependent on a range of other organisms both inside and outside our bodies. Nothing strange about that.

The explanation I gave for the meaning of "Let us create man in our image" is the same as that taught by the Church, as is my explanation of man’s "dominion" and responsibility over all other life; it is only on the issue of animal spirits/souls that I differ with established teaching. And as I said before, that is a very minor issue as far as the Church is concerned. If it every becomes important (I seriously doubt it will.), the Church will more than likely investigate the matter using the exact same methods of ecclesiastical investigation that produced the big bang theory.

If you define "inside" as inside our cells, then I am sure mitochondria are unique in that respect. However, how does that make them significantly different (in a theological sense) from any other organism on which we are dependent?

Wait, back up a bit, I never agreed that mitochondria are entirely separate organisms, only that they originated as such. As I said before, it is no longer a case of one species living inside of another, but of two species merged into one. Where in biology is it stated that they are a whole separate organism? If they really are another species, as you claim, then what is their classification? Can you give me a binomial genus/species name for them? If they were another organism, they would be classified as such. They aren’t.

The only reason I hypothetically supposed that they might be a separate species was to make a point that it’s not theologically different from any other such symbiotic relationship. These are two very important points that I would like you to address. First, on what basis do you claim that mitochondria are another species? Second, even if they are, why does it matter?

In answer to your first question, I do not think that the exact point at which the two species became one (assuming that point can even specified with precision) would be anywhere near to "our" creation if by "our" you mean humanity. It would mean the beginning of the domain Eukaria, with any species of Homo still a very, very, very long way off.

In answer to your second question, I already explained what is meant by being "special." It is a reflection of our ability to manipulate and control this planet, and also of our responsibility to maintain it.

If non-human organisms do not have souls, I still don’t see mitochondria as being a problem. Evolution would then become entirely a story of the development of the physical body, with one soulless ancestor of humanity leading to another, until at some point God injected the soul into the body and humanity began. This is the Catholic Church’s official take on the subject. As I already stated, I do not fully agree with this view, but even if this was somehow shown to be true, I would not see mitochondria as posing a problem at all.

Finally, your point about mitochondria being too new a field of study to be independently classified might hold some weight; however, I am nowhere near qualified enough to make that judgment myself. All I know is that they are not currently classified as a separate organism.

It’s not a reinterpretation at all; the Catholic Church has never held to a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact, the Church has supported evolution since the time of St. Augustine in the 4th century; long before Darwin was even born!

To elaborate on the Church’s point, "day" has no exact meaning for two reasons:
1) The Bible states that a day is like a thousand years to God; this means that, since God is eternal, our measures of time mean little to Him. Also, "thousand" is a common Biblical term to describe any large "uncountable" number.
2) A day on Earth is 24hrs, but on Jupiter it is only 12hrs. On Mars, it is 25hrs. On Venus, it is three months. All of these places were created by God, who exists in Heaven. Who knows how long a "day" is in Heaven? Does Heaven even have days? The Bible does not tell us.

It can thus be understood that the seven days in Genesis 1 do not necessarily mean seven twenty-four hour periods. After all, the Church teaches that the Bible was written by God, and we don’t know how long a day is to God. Also, the order in which life was created in Genesis (starting in the sea, then on land, then man at the end) is the same chronological order as scientific theories concerning evolution.

For these two main reasons (the uncertainty of the term "day" and the order in which life was created), the Church has always been a supporter of evolutionary theory. Indeed, the Catholic Church is (as far as I know) alone among Christian churches in supporting evolution from the very start. So it is no re-interpretation at all; merely what the Church has taught all along, only now with a bit more scientific knowledge to support it.

The Catholic Church never opposed Darwin; that was the Anglican Church, the Church of England. Had Darwin been French instead of English, he would’ve had much less religious trouble. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church that has never opposed evolution; as I said previously, the Catholic Church has supported evolution since the 4th century, long before Darwin was even born.

God could’ve done it either way; the neither the Church nor the Bible states whether God somehow guided the evolutionary process, or just allowed it to run itself.

To answer your last question, the Catholic Church is very firm in its position that all humans have souls.[/quote]

In the 4th century, St. Augustine was the first Christian scholar to address the evolutionary issue, and he largely accepted the prevailing theories of his time, which were developed by the Greeks in the centuries before Christ. The ancients had a basic understanding of natural selection and heredity, although without any knowledge of genetics it was almost impossible for them to explain any of this in the highly detailed terms we use today.

The biggest reason the Church leaves the question open as to whether or not God guided the evolutionary process is because there is no real evidence either way, and I think we will both agree that it would be foolish for anyone to make such a conclusion without evidence.

The Catholic Church’s official stance on the Genesis creation stories is that they are a metaphorical account meant only to show that God created the universe in an orderly manner; I myself have always taken this metaphor a step farther and said that it could be symbolic of the evolutionary process, as I explained earlier.

I am not quite sure about the discussion but I can see genovese fighting for christianity and Alex for evolution and faith.But tell me genovese I think chirstians were one of the most notorious people who could not tolerate the egyptians gods,temples,people,language and destroyed one of the most spectacular civilizations the earth has ever seen.So how do you defend your people now.

Um, David, you might want to check your history on that one. Egyptian civilization was on its way out when the Assyrians took over and imposed their culture on the place. Then the Assyrians were conquered by the Persians, and then the Greeks under Alexander turned Egypt into a Greek colony. Then came the Romans and they imposed their civilization and culture on Egypt, and all of this before Christ was even born! So Egyptian civilization had ended centuries before Christianity came along.

If I remember my history correctly, the ancient Greek version of the theory of evolution was pretty widely accepted in the Roman Empire. St. Augustine’s theories on the subject were pretty widely accepted in the early Church almost right away, as were most of his theological writings.

I am not certain if God’s guidance of the evolutionary process (if that is in fact what He did) would blame him for all our disasters. It seems an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to blame all of the bad things that happen to us on how we evolved. Most of the bad things that happen to us are the result of our own free will, bad choices that we make, and thus our own fault.

Genovese, I’m sorry to have to say this, but you seem to have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. For example:

I admit I said that it is possible that God might have directed the evolutionary process, but I am at a loss to remember where I said the rest of that. Also, please tell me exactly what "mistakes" you are referring to. And what is so illogical about taking responsibility for our own free will? For example, 9/11 happened because a bunch of terrorists decided to fly some planes into buildings. They used their free will. It’s completely illogical to call that a mistake of God.

What do you not understand about my previous explanation of how I interpret the creation stories? If you tell me what’s confusing you I’d be happy to elaborate and provide better answers.

What genetic mistakes are you referring to? And on what basis do you claim those to be mistakes?

My study of Genesis began a few years ago. I grew up as an atheist, but as I got older I began to question what I had been taught. I had already seen way too much evidence to come out against evolution, but in my studies I began to realize more and more that God has to exist. The more I studied the matter, the more I realized just how much evidence there is supporting the existence of God. And the more I studied, the more I noticed that the evidence points towards the Catholic Church as being the true religion. Having learned that the Church has always supported evolutionary theory, this led me to begin to study the origins matter specifically and see what I could figure out for myself.

When I read Genesis for the first time, I was amazed to find that the first few verses sounded like a description of the big bang. I learned later that the big bang theory was first developed by the Catholic Church in order to prove the existence of God. As I continued reading, I found what I have already described, and came to understand Genesis as a broad metaphor of natural history.

To properly understand Genesis, it is important to understand the context into which it was written. Its primary role was not to describe in detail the earth’s creation, but to tell the story of Abraham and his descendants. The primary role of the first twelve chapters of Genesis is to symbolically "set the scene" to describe the kind of world into which Abraham was born. Genesis can thus be divided into three main parts.

The first part is the creation stories. Here, God is shown to create the world in a sort of "Edenic perfection." God is shown to be both creator and master of the universe. The seven day metaphor here serves two purposes. First, it shows that it took some time for the earth be created (that is, it didn’t happen all at once or instantaneously); also, it establishes the basis for one of the most important concepts of Hebrew law: the sabbath. God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. Likewise, the Hebrews celebrated two sabbaths to commemorate this. The sabbatical day is what most people are familiar with; work for six days and rest on the seventh. However, Hebrew law also included a sabbatical year; the people worked for six years, and each year set aside one sixth of their produce, to get them through the seventh year, the sabbatical year, when they rested for the entire year. This sabbatical year could probably be taken as additional evidence that the seven days in Genesis are not meant to be taken as seven literal twenty-four hour periods. Also, the sabbatical year gave the fields time to recover after being worked hard for agriculture for six years (modern farmers use a similar method called crop rotation). Finally, God creates man and tasks him with taking care of the earth. Thus, in the creation stories, God is shown to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and also lays the foundation for the laws that will govern the Hebrew people.

The second part runs from the fall of man through to the collapse of the Tower of Babel. The main themes here are that humans, who have a tendency to corruption, do not live up to their responsibility and spoil the perfection in which the world was created. This is a very easy concept to understand; any casual glance at the evidence will show that humans are very corrupt creatures. Hitler is perhaps the most famous example from modern history, but also consider the escalating crime rates in most large cities and the wave of terrorism gripping the Middle East. History is full of examples of such corruption and immorality, and this dark side of human nature is clearly shown in this second part of Genesis. However, also shown is God’s faithfulness to those who remain moral; Noah, for example. The lesson here is a simple one: those who do what is right will be rewarded, and those who do what is wrong will pay the price of their actions. Any decent parent teaches his children the same lesson by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior.

The third part of the Genesis tells the story of Abraham and his descendants. As the founder of Judaeo-Christianity, Abraham is a vitally important figure in the Bible. It was thus vitally important that the world in which he lived be understood in order to clarify the context of his actions. As was explained in the second part of Genesis, Abraham was born into a world full of immorality. Human sacrifices were not uncommon, and the rape of young virgins was practiced as a form of religious sacrifice. Crime and corruption were endemic. It was in this world that Abraham answered God’s call to live a righteous and moral life. I do not believe I have to explain his life in detail, as his story is already well-known. His great moral courage and fortitude laid the foundation for the rest of the Bible, and is even better understood in the context of the world in which he lived.

To conclude, the primary purpose of Genesis is to describe the "genesis" of the Judaeo-Christian faith. The creation of the world is of largely secondary importance, and meant mainly to tie into the main story of Abraham, as I described above. It is a common mistake of both believers and atheists to try to read the creation stories on their own as literal histories of how the earth began, but this is not the story they are meant to tell. The similarities with the big bang and evolution that I have already described helped me when I was first struggling to answer these questions, but in the end I realized that it isn’t meant to be an exact detail-by-detail account of how God created the world. It is meant instead to say that God created the world, and to begin to explain the standards of morality and responsibility in which He expects us to live; standards that humanity has failed to live up to but which, through the courage of people like Abraham, can be restored and maintained in a corrupt world.

I realize that’s quite a lot to read. My apologies if it’s too long, but I wanted to describe my answer in full detail, as you asked. I’ve been meaning to type all of this for a few days now, but I’ve had to wait for a day off from work so I can set aside the hour that it took me to type this post. I hope it answers some of your questions.

Genovese, just as I needed to do some research to get my facts straight on mitochondria, I suggest you do some research to get your facts straight on the Bible and Christian theology.

It is not hard at all to tell where the Bible is being metaphorical and where it is being literal; if it is read in the context of the whole story or message, it is surprisingly easy to understand. For example, no one claims any of Christ’s parables to be factual biographies; they are symbolic fables, meant to make a theological or moral point. Likewise, when Christ said that He would be crucified and raised from the dead in three days, then when we read this in the context of the whole story (meaning we keep in mind that this actually did happen), then we understand that Christ meant that literally.

The Catholic Church has always maintained that the creation stories are primarily metaphorical (The Church uses the term "mythic stories" to describe them.), and are meant to be read in the context that I previously described. All in all the entire Bible is pretty straight-forward and easy to understand as to what is symbolic and what isn’t.

Of course the same rule applies to the New Testament, that it must also be read and understood in context. One of the many reasons for this is that the New Testament often quotes the Old Testament, so an understanding of the Old Testament is essential to understand the New Testament.

The way I see it, there are two main possibilities here:

a) All life has souls; we have both agreed that mitochondria would not present a problem if this was true.

b) God allowed life to evolve without a soul until humanity was "ready," and then placed souls into the first humans; we have both already agree that mitochondria would not present a problem here either.

We also have not resolved the issue of whether or not mitochondria are in fact independent organisms or just organelles. I think you’ll agree that if they are organelles, that would even further simplify the issue from a theological stance.

That about summarizes my main points. I do agree that after four pages, we seem to be running out of things to say.

No man I am 200% sure[over confident 😆 ] that the chirstians destroyed the egyptian civilization although the assyrians,persians,romans had also invaded but were amazed by their culture[like me 🙄 ] and hence the kings[romans] were depicted as the pharoahs were depicted.The egyptians were resistant to all the civilizations but were destroyed by christians.There is a Temple in Egypt[I donot remeber the name 😳 ] which I remember was like placed in an island and had the Images of the Godess Isis being scraped of and an account written in greek appritiating the people who destroyed such beautiful works in the temple itself 👿 .

genovese I am sorry I called you a theist I apologize.I am sorry man sorry for the pain caused by calling you a theist.

You are right that conquering kings did take the title "Pharaoh," but the Greeks in particular under Alexander and the Ptolemaic dynasty replaced the Egyptian gods and temples with Greek ones. When the Romans took over, they replaced the Greek religion with Roman beliefs. The Romans in particular were very good at "romanizing" conquered territories, so much so that by the time Christianity came to be a powerful force in the world in the 4th century (largely due to Constantine), the ancient Egyptian civilization had been completely replaced by Roman culture.

I am amazed that there is this long discussion about "the soul" in a biological forum and an evolution thread!. . . even after you all agree that it is irrelevant to biology, medicine and evolution! To a Fundamentalist, it would be totally relevant, but I have no reason to suspect any of you are escaped red-necks, cajuns, or Florida crackers from the religious forums!

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

"Mea Culpas" what is that genovese
Hey Alex I am damn sure that the Christians destroyed the Egyptians they were the cause for the complete wipe out of the Ancient egyptian people cos they persecuted saying that they worshipped Pagan gods and hence were intolerant to the other people.

Charles, I AM Cajun! And damn. proud of it! 👿

"Cajun" is an English transliteration of the French term "acadien." "L’Acadie" was the French name for Nova Scotia, and the French settlers that lived there were calles "les acadiens." When the British took over Nova Scotia, they forcibly deported the French settlers that were living there. Many of those French settlers went to Louisiana, which was at that time still under French control and called la louisianne. These settlers still referred to themselves as "les acadiens," and they became the predominant culture in the bayous and swamps of south Louisiana. After the US purchased Louisiana, the Americans referred to les acadiens as Cajuns.

I was raised in the Cajun culture, learning Cajun French (a dialect still heavily based on 18th century French) before I learned to speak English. Today, the Cajun culture is rapidly disappearing as young Cajuns abandon their heritage in favor of more "modern" American culture.

The old Egyptian civilization was by then over 3,000 years old! The people were worshipping some three to four thousand gods! The new religion of Zoaraster and the one of the Jews showed people a more advanced view of the world. Monotheism became "in", the advanced thing to believe in. Christianity was a form of semi-monotheism that appealed to poor people. It spread like fire. People all over the Near East and North Africa took it up. The Romans kept garrisons in Egypt to control its government, but Egypt is a big country and Rome had little influence on the common people of the whole upper Nile!

Besides, the Mesopotamian religion had already died and been replaced by Persian mono or dualtheism. Egypt just followed along with Babylon and the rest.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

It seems to me that if you prefer to ALSO believe in "spirits" ("souls") and other such "spiritual" matters AS WELL AS SCIENCE, we would consider that a personal problem you have and refrian from commenting any further. I hope, then, you two can get back to discussing science alone and keep off non-science subject matter! At least, this is what I hope will happen as I am learning things by observing your posts. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Ok Charles and Alex I saw a documentary in one of the episodes named egyptian journeys in the BBC world.In which they said about how the mighty egyptian civilization came to an end and how it came to an end.I will try my other sources to get more information.
genovese thanks for enlightening me about Mea Culpas 😆 .I was brought up as a protestant so my knowledge about catholics ritual stuff is poor

So religion is a personal problem and because of it I should refrain from commenting? Charles, I hope someone bans you. All you have done is make a mockery of our normally-intelligent discussion and pissed everyone off. I wouldn’t mind as much if there was an ounce of truth or logic to anything you say but there isn’t. I was quite enjoying genovese and my discussion before you ruined it with your absurdity.

I see I have upset you. Please, continue your discussion with the others and I will stay out.

Let me just ask you this, and I’ll try to be civil. What’s wrong with being Cajun? I’m honestly curious about this.

I am a classicist. I see a "high culture" developing in every civilization at a certain stage of its cycle—that is, the early maturity. It personally appeals to me as well as being a sort of benchmark in each civilization. I am proud of our Western classical culture. I love opera, ballet, etc. I appreciate classical art and poetry.

I have lived among poor people and understand them from long exposure. I am not judgemental towards them and we have helped each other through crisis. I have lived in old RV parks for 2.5 years with them and know their problems. I have listened to Cajun music and, as well, Mexican Rancheros for months without complaint. I have lived among people with long beards and in the "red neck culture" but even they do not claim that their ways are elegant, classical, the best in taste!

I am proud of you! You asked a very difficult question and I have done my best to answer it . . .

How can you claim a culture to be the "best in taste"? That seems to be extremely arrogant to me.

Considering your own FAITH to be "the Truth" seems to me to make it "the best" in one’s mind . . .which is also arrogance. I am just satisfied to believe natural cause and effect gives us merely a more acturate picture of ourselves and the universe around us. I don’t claim to have "absolute knowledge."

That doesn’t answer my question. "Truth" can be established based on evidence and investigation. I doubt anyone’s going to claim that to be arrogance, and if you can show where I am wrong, I’ll reconsider.

My question was about culture. Culture is the practices and customs of a group of people. How can you claim any one culture to be "best in taste" over others? Are Italian operas really better than zydeco music?

A) but what you have been preaching here is 2,000 year old doctrine that has nothing to do with "evidence and investigation." It has to do with your FAITH that it is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Most scientists do not recognize that such a thing exists.

B) I am unaware that I ever said classical music was the "best". I just mentioned that I like it best. Every civilization goes through changes that are like a life cycle. Educated Muslims, for example, look back on the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries when Islam was the strongest and when its culture had become idealistic. This they view with pride. I feel the same with my (our) civilization. (On my 2nd visit to the Vatican in Rome, I recall seeing Japanese tourists placing souveneer-bought prayer beeds around their necks. I felt an immense pride in seeing them look at the high culture of our civilization at its best. I was disappointed when I saw that the Vatican was not even among the proposals advanced for the popular election of the words greatest monuments. One that WAS selected was that immense and ugly statue of Christ in Buenos Aires!))

By the way, no two things are exactly equal. Everything is different in every way. If we cannot be equal, some have to be better. You consider yourself better. That is the reason you got educated. Everyone else does also and for the same reasons. It is just that our secular doctrines encourage us to deny it. So, everyone lies to themselves!

My apologies, then; I misunderstood what you meant by "best in taste." There is of course nothing wrong with stating that you like one sort of culture more than another. We all have our favorites. And you’re right, most people are lying to themselves.

My apologies also as several times a made jabs that were meaner than they looked!

HUGS ALL AROUND!