Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Ch.15.8 Jesus quotes Isaiah, saying " This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; and in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" . The Word of God always takes precedence over the words of man
 
Are you questioning the Lord’s integrity or his ability to make himself understood ?
 
No. I’m quretioning whether people 2000 years later can take second-hand accounts for what they are or might be.

Fundies have a very peculiar way if choosing what they want to take literal and what they want to take as allegory.
 
It is better to say that creationists read and understand the Bible according to the grammatical-historical approach to Scripture. That is, we understand a biblical passage by taking into account its context, author, readership, literary style, etc. In other words, we read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say "literal interpretation of the Bible " This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible.
" But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God " 2 Corinthians 4:2
 
Carmel said:
That is, we understand a biblical passage by taking into account its context, author, readership, literary style, etc. In other words, we read and understand the Bible
Click to expand...
The same methid by which the Catholic Church has determined a six-day creation isn’t a necessary belief and that a Catholic can take Genesis allegorically?

I’m just saying this not to say you can’t believe six-day, you can, but to make clear that those who don’t, including me, are not in error for doing so.
 
In Catholicism, literal has never meant literalistic.

To get the “literal” sense simply means identifying what the author, via the Holy Spirit, is intending to convey.

Example in point: To take Genesis literally in its creation account is not equivalent to saying Earth was created in six 24-hour days. Rather, it means taking literally what the author is asserting, via his writing style, genre, cultural context, intentions, and so on.

So when it comes down to it, a Catholic can take Genesis literally AND accept the findings of science (i.e., evolution in this context), because Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim.
 
Last edited:
2 points that should also be said:
  1. When it comes down to it, Catholic simply can be orthodox and faithful and also accept evolution and the findings of science, as accepted by most scientists. Even the official magisterium has strongly suggested a sway towards biological evolution. The past three popes seemed to accept it, even bluntly. The Catechism says Genesis use “figurative” language.
  2. Not all early church fathers read Genesis literalistically. Augustine and Origen, two giants, come to mind. But even if it were true that all Church Fathers accepted a young earth… so what? What does this have to do with Divine Revelation? Did the Church Fathers have any extra-biblical reason to think the Earth was billions of years old? We can’t blame them for their assumed views, when they had a lack of data that we now have. A very similar case can be made with geocentric views of the cosmos (OR, are there Catholics on here that believe geocentrism too??). Early Christians had no real reason to reject the geocentric (Earth as center of cosmos) view of reality. But when the data came, the Church evolved, too.
 
Last edited:
Genesis tells us that man was created in the image of God. Evolution tells us that man came out of the slime of the sea and after eons was a monkey swinging in the trees, until he began to stand upright and become less hairy and voila became a caveman.
Sociologists shouldn’t be surprised if Johnny in school is told that his great grandfather was a monkey, that Johnny soon starts to behave like a monkey. The whole theory is insulting, not just to our integrity, but also to our dignity conferred on us by God, at the beginning
 
Carmel said:
Sociologists shouldn’t be surprised if Johnny in school is told that his great grandfather was a monkey,
Click to expand...
If Johnny in school is told that his great grandfather was a monkey, Johnny is not being taught evolution, he’s being taught nonsense, and his parents need to pitch at fit at the school board meetings until a real science teacher is hired.
 
The education system is owned and biased in one direction. No debate is permitted.
Isn’t that a form of dumbing down the population , and making them go along to get along ?
 
Clearly, the Popes of the 20th and 21st century have no problem with evolution, insofar at it is a scientific explanation of how biological realities — and the human body — has developed over time:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. -Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
Click to expand...
“What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow, and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. … More reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. 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, which we just heard, 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.” -Benedixt XVI
Click to expand...
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. -John Paul II
Click to expand...
When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so. He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve. -Pope Francis
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top