a hard question

  • Thread starter Thread starter SimonArizona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that God created everything but I don’t really have a problem with God ordaining natural law as the instrument of the creative process over 7 periods. I do not really think it is necessary that those 7 periods be 24 hour days though. The periods could just as well be millenium by our reckoning - but a mere day in God’s reckoning.

There is a lot of metaphor in the bible and I do not care either way but tend toward the belief that God used a single Word of will to initiate the universe (big bang or whatever - it does not matter to me the precise mechanism). But its clear that God has most often operated through natural phenomena in the OT (the plagues, manna, etc.) so I tend toward the metaphorical over a literal interpretation for most of the creative accounts.

James
It still gets to my point we can’t prove what happened in the sky at that point. The plagues and etc. were for a purpose: to recognize God and for that we can’t take anything for granted. We must ask forgiveness of sins. I do believe there were 24 hour time periods rather than milenium as one day. Also anything in the Glory of God before creation of man was a spiritual being. Animals were created I think the day before man, which isn’t long at all. But man most certainly didn’t evolve from animal God created him. I believe in a literal interpretation of God’s word it is called the Latin Vulgate and its English counterpart the Douay-Rheims. Genesis gives the most accurate account of the world’s creation not some scientist who is only of worldly things,
 
Genesis gives the most accurate account of the world’s creation not some scientist who is only of worldly things,
There are numerous religious scientist (including Catholic scientist) who agree that evolution is the most accurate account of our origin.

When one really studies evolution, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to deny its validity.

Hence Popes JP2 and Ratzinger both considered evolution valid.
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
simon,
You will have to define your thoughts on “evoltionary process.”

"In the beginning God created … See Gen.1:-31

jean8
 
There are numerous religious scientist (including Catholic scientist) who agree that evolution is the most accurate account of our origin.

When one really studies evolution, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to deny its validity.

Hence Popes JP2 and Ratzinger both considered evolution valid.
I have denied evolution since I heard about it. Regardless what they think it is not valid.
 
simon,
You will have to define your thoughts on “evoltionary process.”

"In the beginning God created … See Gen.1:-31

jean8
agreed. God created the universe in 6 days and rested the 7th. No where have I seen anything in the Bible to support evolution. I refuse to believe in a theory that an agnostic drew up. He doesn’t know weather or not God exist, why should I even believe a word out the false prophet’s mouth?
 
“There is grandeur in this view of life,with its several powers,having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”-C.Darwin
 
Pope Benedict concerning the Church’s views…

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)[page needed]

In a book released in 2008, his comments prior to becoming Pope were recorded as:

“The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that–however stammeringly–was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.”

– Joseph Ratzinger[11]
 
“There is grandeur in this view of life,with its several powers,having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”-C.Darwin
Again, why would I believe a false teacher (Charles Darwin) over God and his Holy word???
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
There was no such thing as a man prior to the creation of Adam. Perhaps an evolutionary process had already begun which produced precursers to man’s physical composite, but they were not men. They lacked an immortal soul. A human being is a composite of a body and an immortal soul, made in the image and likeness of God. Until Adam was endowed with a human soul he was not human.
The death of the potential precursers of Adam does not relate to the death of Adam (and his descendants) following the Fall. As was said earlier:
40.png
VociMike:
Another possibility is that, while death existed in the world, that doesn’t mean that humans would have died, had it not been for the Fall.
 
Out of curiosity what do you mean, exactly, by the word “days” in the above? What is a day? An amount of time? Please be precise.
A day 1 24 hour period. What don’t people get one day is 24 hours just like it is today. How more clear can scripture be???
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Please give me some proof that evolution exist from the Bible and not just some false teacher (Darwin)??? I have yet to see it.
 
Again, why would I believe a false teacher (Charles Darwin) over God and his Holy word???
You are creating a false dichotomy. Truths are self evident and can be discovered by religious as well as non-religious. Discovery of natural truth is not necessarily a function of spiritual discernment nor belief nor worthiness. If God can make a donkey talk (ref: Balaam’s donkey) then God can certainly make an *** of a man or an atheist discover a truth and speak it as well.

Further God’s FULL Word is in the person of Jesus - it is not only in “the bible”. Creation serves God and so God’s Word exists in some manner in Creation and is expressed through the majesty therein. Do not limit your thinking to just what is written in the bible - since we know from “the bible” that it does not contain all that was done by Jesus and is not ALL of God’s Word (tradition is another source of God’s word).

Fortunately we need not know fully all of God’s many mysteries to gain salvation and Theosis. If this is too difficult a thing to accept as a possibility - you can continue in accepting a literal reading of Creation. But we should never be afraid to use science to find the truth and ratify our insights. I think the evidence makes a strong case of at least a partial evolutionary process.

In fact “evolution” is highly consistent with the Catholic belief of infused grace since we believe that grace operates over the life of the person to transform them into God’s children. This same principal could also be said to operate at a macro level on the “race” of humanity - progressively evolving him. Unfortunately, the bible shows the reverse condition morally. That is we have a clear case of escalating deprivation as moral decay effects humanity and it falls deeper into sin - at least till Jesus is born (at which time creation is reconfigured to Him). In essence we have a new human protoype in Jesus that God sends to redirect us more perfectly toward Him.

I have no problem with an evolutionary model of creation - but can live with a literal one as well. But we still have unexplained physical phenomena and archaeological artifacts that need to be reconciled.

James
 
Please give me some proof that evolution exist from the Bible and not just some false teacher (Darwin)??? I have yet to see it.
Well its hard to prove evolution true using the Sacred Scriptures.

Just because something isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

For example:

Was George Washington the 1st president of the United States? No because its not in the Bible. But it IS in history books.

Is the molecular structure of water H20? No because its not in the Bible! But it IS in science books.

If a truth was required to be “in the bible” to be true, then the Bible would be 100,000 volumes thick.

I need to make another point…
 
The Bible uses poetry and parables (like Jesus used) that are not precise historical facts of events (ten virgins, prodical son,etc) that teach man the deeper truth -that is, mans relationship to
Almighty God.

The history of the bible according to Frank Sheed-a Catholic theologian and author- begins with man and woman in the Garden, and 500 years after those first 5 books were written, a poet saw the need for a grand opening to the sacred book, so he wrote the opening Genesis account, which again, didn’t exist for 500 years after Genesis was written.

The opening to Genesis is TRUE. But it expresses its truth in poetry, not scientific facts.
 
You are creating a false dichotomy. Truths are self evident and can be discovered by religious as well as non-religious. Discovery of natural truth is not necessarily a function of spiritual discernment nor belief nor worthiness. If God can make a donkey talk (ref: Balaam’s donkey) then God can certainly make an *** of a man or an atheist discover a truth and speak it as well.

Further God’s FULL Word is in the person of Jesus - it is not only in “the bible”. Creation serves God and so God’s Word exists in some manner in Creation and is expressed through the majesty therein. Do not limit your thinking to just what is written in the bible - since we know from “the bible” that it does not contain all that was done by Jesus and is not ALL of God’s Word (tradition is another source of God’s word).

Fortunately we need not know fully all of God’s many mysteries to gain salvation and Theosis. If this is too difficult a thing to accept as a possibility - you can continue in accepting a literal reading of Creation. But we should never be afraid to use science to find the truth and ratify our insights. I think the evidence makes a strong case of at least a partial evolutionary process.

In fact “evolution” is highly consistent with the Catholic belief of infused grace since we believe that grace operates over the life of the person to transform them into God’s children. This same principal could also be said to operate at a macro level on the “race” of humanity - progressively evolving him. Unfortunately, the bible shows an escalating deprivation as moral decay effects humanity - at least till Jesus is born (at which time creation is reconfigured to Him).

I have no problem with an evolutionary model of creation - but can live with a literal one as well. But we still have unexplained physical phenomena and archaeological artifacts that need to be reconciled.

James
I do have a problem with evolutionary model of creation. Because it doesn’t exist. God created man from the dust of the earth and it is stated in so many place to count. Science is also a bunch of hogwash. A bunch of people getting paid to make up stories to get money and worldly things. If God hadn’t told us how man formed back in the day of the OT then the Genesis is false and Charles Darwin is right. Again I refuse to believe anything that scientific or biblical that comes from an athiests or agnostic’s mouth. They don’t believe in God or don’t know weather one exist. Why should I believe in that hogwash?? I want to know how evolution exists when God already told us the story of creation? He didn’t tell us the story of evolution. He never said we evolved from other creatures. It would been well documented. Yes one cannot rely on scripture alone, but majority of the Catholic faith is based on on what the Bible teaches us and what the Apostles passed down from Christ to us. Certainly one would have had this theory before Darwin who created this theory
 
What about those who don’t assume that the The Theory of Evolution is anything more than…a theory??
Gravity is “just a theory” too. Do you believe in it less because it is “just a theory”? How about the germ theory of disease? It’s “just a theory” too. Name something in science that is more than a theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top