Don’t be embarressed; if anything us who are bringing the theological stuff should be embarressed.
Yes, actually, you do. In order to believe in evolution, you must deny the Bible’s teaching about death being introduced as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin.
If you really believe that it’s divinely inspired, then why don’t you believe it when it says six literal days?
You mean like the one where I shared the story of my wife’s and my wedding and my family and wedding was mocked? Oh, wait, that was a Catholic.
That’s funny, my experience has been just the opposite. From the Catholic poster who called my daughter stupid to the Catholic poster who mocked my family and my wedding to the numerous Catholic posters who have mocked and denigrated my church, I’m having a hard time finding any civil Catholics here.
I’m sorry but I disagree. Adam and Eve would nonetheless fit in an evolutionary model of creation. The Church doesn’t waver that there is an Adam and an Even and through them sin and death came into the world. But it still doesn’t mean that Evolution is not compatible with what is written in the Bible. Surprisingly, it does.
I personally do. But I know what the Church is saying that it doesn’t matter what we believe on the “how” of creation, the important thing is the “who”. And that no matter how we believe the world came to be, the ultimate source is God. That is the whole point of Genesis.
Actually, it isn’t compatible at all. If you accept evolution, then not only do you have to throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but you’re also calling Jesus Christ a liar.
No you don’t, or else you wouldn’t believe in evolution and would acknowledge that God created the world in six literal days.
Actually, that’s not the whole point of Genesis at all. The point of Genesis is mankind’s fall into sin and God’s plan to save mankind through establishing a relationship with Israel and the Messiah that would come out of that line, as well as establishing the principle of substitutionary atonement.
Verse & Scripture?
Not everyone accepts Substitutionary atonement. The Church; founded on St. Peter; to whom Jesus said Matt 16;19 “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Chapters 1-11.
Nice try, but we’re not talking about parables.
Then they’re not Christians.
I don’t accept evolution, but I think it is a good theory. To God a thousand years is one day and vice-versa - meaning that “one day” to God (who inspired the writing of Scripture)does not necessarily mean “one day” in human time.:newidea:
The Bible explains itself pretty well.
Where does Jesus Christ say that you must believe in a literal six days of creation?A literal six days? So I suppose you believe Christ’s words literally when He stated that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you?” And do you also believe literally when Jesus stated that you must be born of water and spirit in order to be saved? I’ve always found it strange and ironic that fundamentalists use the literal interpretation of the Creation Story as a touchstone of orthodoxy, while simultaneously bending over backwards to (mis)interpret Jesus’ own words regarding salvation in the least literal fashion.
I’m sure he meant the Creation Story, not Genesis as a whole.
Except where the text does say one day in human time.
No. Just because one thing is literal doesn’t mean that everything is literal.
Yes.
Whatever.
So where does the Bible have the words, “one day in human time?”
Since you admit the Bible is not always literal, how do you know for sure that the six days of creation is a literal six days?
The world cannot understand the things of the spirit, as St. Paul wrote. It seems telling that when Scripture speaks of Christ’s flesh, you can only think of corruptible human flesh.
So you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Sorry, not playing this game. The Bible doesn’t have to say a word in order for the principle behind the word to be taught in scripture.So where does the Bible have the words, “one day in human time?”
By studying the language and context of the text in question.
Thank you for doubting my salvation. I don’t, as I have the assurance of the Word of God that my salvation is both true and secure.
Nope. We’re not saved by works.
Just as the constant Catholic tactic of denigrating your opponents’ posts, rather than refuting them, makes me not want to take anything you have to say seriously.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Actually, I’m already saved.
My post wasnt directed towards you - but rather towwards Auburn88. Your approach was in a Christian manner unlike hers. Let me reiterate - I have no problem discussing differences - but I will not be bullied either. If I didnt hold to the beliefs stated in the Nicene Creed , I wouldnt be able to call myself Catholic. That isnt a reflection on what you believe or do not believe , its a statement of that which I believe.
Please don’t feel bad, this was an excellent question and I learned a lot. The side discussions were distracting but the on topic answers were very illuminating.
The obvious difference being , I wasnt the one who mocked your wedding , insulted your daughter , called anyone a racist nor went looking to get into an argument with you. If you read what I posted and then read what your response was to the post I submitted and then can honestly say that your response was “Christ like” and or offered in good faith - then you arent paying attention. Catholics are called to emulate Saints not sinners. So Unles you can state when the Catholics who Insulted your daughter or your wedding were Canonized then you are merely attempting to smear the entire Catholic religion on the misdeeds of a few who obviously dont embody the precepts of Our Faith. Did Mother Theresa insult your Daughter? Or Mother Angelica question your marriage? Or I? But you seem to be painting us all with the broad brush of condemnation dont you?
But you are the one who falsely accused me of being the one who is “uncivil” and “Unchristian”, even though I never said anything either uncivil or Unchristian to you.
actually, Auburn this response is almost the textbook reaction of the modernists as described by Pope St Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi: when confronted with evidence, in our case evidence from the written Tradition which refutes the positions you have posited, the reaction is one of feigned hurt or injustice. The written Tradition is what it is, and no amount of mental calisthenics can change what the Written Tradition clearly teaches.
Wouldn’t the logical thing be to actually present some sort of evidence and then see how I react, before you declare how I react?