As a Catholic...

[inthecloud]

such as the Big Bang theory but before one accuses me of not being a Catholic, let me explain the way I see it. The Big Bang states that millions and million and million (you get the idea) a bunch of gases came together and created a big explosion in the Universe. First of all, where did these gases come from or what caused them to come together. The only answer is God.

Look Im a theistic evolutionist, and in my signature you can see the name of a man that not only was Catholic, he even became a bishop in the CC and not only believed in Evolution but also made the Bing Bang theory. And despite the chaos of evolution, cosmological and biological, there are some legitimate trends over time that make me believe that there was a hidden order in the chaos, so at least i’m a deist. Now I want to prove my natural God is the same as the Bible’s God (but that is another story). Same as the chaos of human life and history. There are definitive trends over time. So I do find the randomess of atheistic evolution hard to believe.

But the atheistic evolution vs literal creationism if a false dichotomy that only the vested interests of militant atheists and creationist keep alive in the US. I do not see the controversy outside the US.
And creationism is not only a intelectual dead end, in the end if will hurt Christianity more that evolution.
I have seen atheist in private support creationism saying that if forces people to choose between religion and “reality”. And that theistic evolutionism prolonges the life of religion and should be opposed.

 

[Monty_Arch]

Bible readers fall into two groups. For the sake of simplicity, we may split Bible readers into two primary groups: Literalists and Contextualists. Literalists, also called fundamentalists, interpret the Bible literally, saying it means exactly what it says. Contextualists interpret the Bible contextually, saying we must consider the historical, cultural and literary context in which the Bible was written. … Catholics use the Contextualist method of interpreting the Bible.
/QUOTE]

Exactly! I got this from John Martignoni;s Bible Christian Society website:

"The ‘literal’ meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The ‘literalist’ interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: ‘that’s what it says, that’s what it means.’

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was ‘raining cats and dogs outside’, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the ‘literal’ interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a ‘iteralist’ interpretation of the phrase, ‘it’s raining cats and dogs’?

The ‘literalist’ interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation…

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation."

 

[Monty_Arch]

Exactly!! I got this from John Martignoni’s *Bible Christian Society *website:

"The ‘literal’ meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The ‘literalist’ interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: ‘that’s what it says, that’s what it means.’

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was ‘raining cats and dogs outside’, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the ‘literal’ interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a ‘iteralist’ interpretation of the phrase, ‘it’s raining cats and dogs’?

The ‘literalist’ interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation…

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation."

 

[jcrichton]

I hear you, Angel. I’m reminded of the second law of thermodynamics which I learned about a million years ago. The law of entropy. Order progresses to maximum disorder–as long as there is no influence from outside. So a pan of hot water on the stove with no heat under it will cool to room temperature. Water flows downhill unless it is dammed. (not damned) Batteries lose their charge. DNA doesn’t just become more complex–when mutations happen the result is less complexity. So bacteria will never spontaneously mutate into algae. Moss will never spontaneously mutate into a rose. Coco the gorilla will never spontaneously mutate into Brittany Spears (oh, bad example) But you get my point.

A creator created all of these organisms. He is the organizor of creation. He gave everything its order and placed it here on the world stage. Natural processes are constantly pecking away at the orginal order of everything so, as the generations go by, order is slowly being lost. Eventually, without divine intervention, the solar system–the sun, the earth, all life on earth–will just sort of wind down and die. Don’t worry that’s a long time from now. None of us will be here.

So now apply the law of entropy to genetics. The human family tree, that started out perfect will, encounter mutations every so often. Dominant traits are manifested immediately and eliminated from the gene-pool through natural selection. Recessive mutations remain hidded and don’t manifest unless paired with the same mutation in the mate. So recessive mutations are not weeded out of the gene-pool and collect over the generations. Then someone marries his cousin and their genetic makeups are so close that some of those recessives pair up and the mutations are manifested. So incest is outlawed (by God through Moses) to prevent that from happening. By marrying more distant relatives (after all we are all related) the likelyhood of pairing recessive mutations is decreased.

At least that’s the way I see it.

(I know there are a lot of evolutionists doing logical backflips trying to convince themselves that order can be created from disorder as long as more disorder is created somewhere else in the system, but that’s a far cry from concluding there is no creator.)

JKing

(Just my name: Jeff King)

***Hi, JKing!

…precisely why I do not believe that science can ever find the truth… as reality challenges its theories science tends to dissolve or ignore the very rules which it so painstakingly orchestrated to provide credence to its theorems and hypotheses while attempting to disprove the Existence of the Creator.

My statement does not claim that Theology and Science cannot coexist… you made a perfect merge between science (human procreation) and Theology (Mosaic Law which prohibits incestuous reproduction); even the big bang and theory of evolution can be found reflected in the Biblical acconts of Creation–if both these issues are revisited with Yahweh God at the Helm of Creation they take on a truer form.

(I hope that you don’t mind that I will still see your name in the higher formon–it’s automatic! )

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

And creationism is not only a intelectual dead end, in the end if will hurt Christianity more that evolution.
I have seen atheist in private support creationism saying that if forces people to choose between religion and “reality”. And that theistic evolutionism prolonges the life of religion and should be opposed.

***Hi, inthecloud!

…so you’re saying that if Catholics denounce the account of Creation in the Bible then the Church would benifit because we would no longer be seen as backwards and insipid?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Preacher_Vern]

***Hi, juliamajor!

I think that he is insinuating that Catholics do not interprete the Holy Scriptures correctly…

…you have to understand that there is great freedom in personal interpretation and we miss out on all that fun since we are slaves to Christ, Who Commands that we abide in His Word so that He made Abide in us; that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood in order to Live in Him!

Maran atha!

Angel***

But if you are not born again then how much is that going to do you any good?

 

[davidv]

But if you are not born again then how much is that going to do you any good?

If it leads one to become born again, do you suppose this is a “good” thing?

 

[inthecloud]

The problem with the fundamentalist approach of Bible reading is that turn of educated people from Christianity.
That people will never be born again.

 

[jcrichton]

But if you are not born again then how much is that going to do you any good?

***Hi, Preacher Vern!

…by being born again… do you mean speaking in strange non-human tongue or divining evil spirits on others or healing or being healed by the imposition of someone’s hand or handling snakes…?

If by being born again you mean being born of the Holy Spirit, then you must not be too familiar with the Catholic Credo. Our Faith is based on One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; One Faith: One Baptism, One Gospel, One Body.

Maran atha!

Angel***