Any young earth creationists out there?

[Glark]

And to the people who keep insisting what Catholicism teaches about creation in Genesis, please recognize that the Catechism states multiple times that Genesis uses “figurative language” and speaks “symbolically.” Do you agree with the Catechism, or do you not?

As a matter of fact, No, I don’t agree with the Catechism. I think it lacks balance and is seriously biased in favour of evolution, is not entirely honest and is deliberately misleadng.
For example, as far as I know, nowhere in the CCC does it mention that Catholics are free to interpret the Genesis creation account literally. On the contrary, it states only that Genesis uses symbolic or figurative language, which is very misleading half-truth - it gives an unwitting reader the false impression that Genesis is to be read only in a non-literal sense (in order to accommodate evolution, of course).

And then there are paragraphs 283 and 284, but don’t get me started on them.

 

[Glark]

Fascinating.

 

[Glark]

Perhaps there is some connection between the fallen angels (demons) and dinosaurs, that lead to the divine destruction of the latter. Just an idea.

Darwinism has a contrary and in my opinion irrational principle of nature contrary to observation

“… but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation.” - Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Botany Department of Cambridge University)

 

[Glark]

in my version God both created and sustains the universe directly.

Does God directly guide evolution?

 

[Glark]

Hey Carmel and Glark! Why is the book of Genesis in the Bible.

Because the Church put it there.

Is it just a history book?

It’s possible that it is more than just history

 

[Glark]

The Great Prophet George Carlin

What great prophesy did this great junkie and alcoholic come up with?

 

[Glark]

All this makes me wonder why the Creationists of this forum are so anti-evolution.

For one thing, one cannot serve two masters. If one believes in a literal “six days” of creation, one cannot also believe in billions of years of evolution.
Since it is licit for a Catholic to believe in “six days of creation”, it is licit for a Catholic to reject evolution.

Other considerations include:

• the theory of microbe-man evolution is an insult to and an abuse of true science
• ToE is a weapon invented by Satan
• believe in evolution is a gateway to belief in Aliens, which may figure in some knd of global deception in the last days.

 

[Glark]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - New Age nutter and hero to the Catholic lunatic-fringe. How he managed to avoid excommunication by the Church is quite a mystery.

In recommending him, your credibility has just plunged into a death spiral.

 

[Glark]

Liar

Your true colours are showing now.

 

[Techno2000]

Fascinating.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As a matter of fact, No, I don’t agree with the Catechism.

That’s quite OK. There are aspects of the Catechism which I don’t agree with either. However, it is wrong to claim that that aspects of the Catechism we don’t agree with are in fact the teaching of the Church. The Catechism teaches that you can be a Catholic and an Evolutionist. To claim that it doesn’t is factually incorrect, even if you disagree.

Since it is licit for a Catholic to believe in “six days of creation”, it is licit for a Catholic to reject evolution.

Of course it is. Nobody here has ever denied that. You may reject evolution all you like. You may say that all evolutionists are wrong, even Satanic (see below); but you may not say that the Church agrees with you.

Other considerations include:
the theory of microbe-man evolution is an insult to and an abuse of true science
ToE is a weapon invented by Satan
believe in evolution is a gateway to belief in Aliens, which may figure in some knd of global deception in the last days.

Yes, indeed. You may think that. And you’re welcome. What you may not claim is that any of these statements is endorsed by the Church, and what I may claim is that in calling something permitted by the Church ‘Satanic’, you are in fact denying the teaching of the Church. (Oooh, a heretic - burn him!)

Your true colours are showing now.

I hope my true colours have been apparent in everything I have posted. If you post something that is transparently untrue, for the deliberate purpose of misrepresenting someone, then you lie. That’s what a lie is. That’s what liars do. I don’t do it. Catholic1 doesn’t do it. Evolutionists do not do it. They don’t need to. Why is it, in this forum at least, such a distinguishing characteristic of Creationists, do you think?

 

[Carmel]

Point me to a magisterial document that says we MUST believe Eve literally, physically came from Adam. How would the sacred writer even know such a specific detail??

The sacred writer you’re referring to is Moses. We know from the Bible that Moses spoke face-to-face with God. Scripture also recounts that when Miriam and Aaron challenged his authority, that they were punished by God Himself and Miriam was struch with leprosy.
Is that another inconvenient truth in the Bible that you deny ?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The sacred writer you’re referring to is Moses. We know from the Bible that Moses spoke face-to-face with God. Scripture also recounts that when Miriam and Aaron challenged his authority, that they were punished by God Himself and Miriam was struch with leprosy.

Is that another inconvenient truth in the Bible that you deny ?

Hi Carmel, I know that you have unswerving faith in the literalness of the bible and I commend you for it. However, there’s no point in asking people like me (and I think Catholic1 is a person like me) to comment on the precise details of something literal, when we don’t accept the whole basis.

You may be correct that Moses was the inspired writer of the early books of the bible, but I don’t think he was. What’s more, I don’t think most of the the divine inspiration for the words of the bible was given to a writer at all. The first person to take pen to papyrus to compose the book of Genesis, if that’s what it was, composed a more or less coherent written compendium of numerous oral (and maybe a few written) testimonies that had been around for a century or more before he was born. The specific word first written for Adam’s “rib” does not actually refer to a thin bone at all, but to a general part of Adam’s “side”.

So it isn’t meaningful to claim that we “deny” “inconvenient truths”. As we do not think they are truths at all, then they are not at all inconvenient. We deny that the story of Adam’s so-called rib is literally true, not because it is inconvenient, but because its truth is both irrational and unnecessary.

 

[Carmel]

So it isn’t meaningful to claim that we “deny” “inconvenient truths”. As we do not think they are truths at all, then they are not at all inconvenient.

So , when push comes to shove you consider yourself a Catholic who can pick and choose what (if anything ) in the Bible he does or does not believe . Curioser and curioser

 

[angel12]

not entirely honest and is deliberately misleadng.

You think that Holy Mother Church deliberately misleads us in the Catechism. That’s very sad. Why would you belong to a Church that allegedly lies to you?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So , when push comes to shove you consider yourself a Catholic who can pick and choose what (if anything ) in the Bible he does or does not believe . Curioser and curioser

Oh. please Carmel, do not fall into Glark’s error of misrepresenting what I say. In particular, do not do it deliberately, in an attempt to bear false witness against me. Your paraphrase of my comment is untrue, unfair, and unChristian. Try to avoid posts which make unwarranted conclusions.

To everybody except Young Earth Creationists - and good for them by standing by their guns - the bible is not literally true in every respect, and requires careful study and analysis to determine how its truth is to be discovered. Much of it is, as carefully worded by the teaching of the Catholic Church, “figurative”. No Catholic can “pick and choose what (if anything ) in the Bible he does or does not believe,” willy-nilly, or independently. His interpretations must always fall within the constraints of the teaching of the Church, which does not deny, I think, that everything I say above may be true, and is certainly an acceptable field of inquiry.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I think it lacks balance and is seriously biased in favour of evolution, is not entirely honest and is deliberately misleadng.

You see, this is what I meant by introducing 20th century Church reform into the mix, so vehemently objected to by Edwest and Buffalo. All three of you have some firm commitment to some kind of Catholicism, but refuse to accept it as it can be discovered in the 1992 Catechism. Some of you simply deny that the Catechism says what it does, but in claiming that it is dishonest and deliberately misleading, Glark seems to side, at least in part, with those sedevacantists who deny that the Vatican has had any authority over the Catholic Church since 1958, who hold similar views.

 

[Carmel]

His interpretations must always fall within the constraints of the teaching of the Church, which does not deny, I think, that everything I say above may be true, and is certainly an acceptable field of inquiry.

The Catholic Church has a two thousand year old history of surviving assaults. According to Jesus, the greatest persecution lies in the time of the Great tribulation.
Jesus faced the temptations in the desert. Satan had the temerity to even quote Scripture to test Him. Jesus rebuffed each of Satan’s temptations by quoting the Word of God back to him.
In Luke Ch.22 the apostles were disputing among themselves which of them was the greatest.
The Lord told them that true greatness lay in caring for others rather than seeking to exalt themselves. He said to Peter " Simon,Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail…" Even a Pope can make mistakes.We have no illusions about human nature.
If someone wants to believe evolution and try to reconcile that with the Bible it doesn’t work.
The bottom line is faith must lead reason, not the other way around.
We are to eat from the Tree of Life and not eat from the tree of knowledgd of good and evil.

 

[Gorgias]

On the contrary, it states only that Genesis uses symbolic or figurative language, which is very misleading half-truth

Actually, that’s not what it says. The statement it makes is much more precise than that. You might want to go back and re-read it and learn what it really says.

And then there are paragraphs 283 and 284, but don’t get me started on them.

Surprising. I’d think that you’d agree that there are theological truths which “go beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.”

 

[mVitus]

If someone wants to believe evolution and try to reconcile that with the Bible it doesn’t work.

The bottom line is faith must lead reason, not the other way around.

I’ve got some “yes/no” questions for you.

1: Does the Catholic Church allow a figurative interpretation of Genesis?
2: Does the Catechism refer to Genesis as using figurative language?
3: Does the Catholic Church have authority to interpret Scripture?
4: Did Jesus say “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates if hell shall not prevail against it.”?

(P.S. those should all be answered ‘yes.’)

5: Does that statement mean that the Catholic Church would be allowed to have a blatantly false and heretical interpretation of Scripture?
6: Is the Church heretical?
7: Is the Church Sola Scriptura?
8: Does allowing evolution prevent you from believing six-day Creation?
9: Does allowing six-day prevent me from accepting evolution?

(P.S. those should all be answered ‘no.’)