B
buffalo
Guest
No it is not mockery. It is an illustration of how we reason our observations.is that supposed to be a mockery?
- Status
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Here’s the problem with taking the Bible literally:
- There has to be a monetary value assigned to a woman’s virginity. How much was mine worth?
- Women are still property.
- Many people use proof-texting to support literal views.
- Protestants have been able to use Biblical literalism to “show” that the CC is false.
- People who work on the Sabbath out of necessity would have to be put to death. So I’d be dead.
- We could still own slaves, as long as they’re from other countries.
- Women would be unclean during “that time.” Camping out in winter doesn’t really sit well with me.
- I would have to call my husband “master,” just as Sarah did.
- Jesus said he was a doorway. Does that mean if I’m mad at God, I can slam the door?
- In 1 Corinthians 14:34 would make all female Lectors heretics.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics understand the Bible as to what the author intended to convey. To find this out we must look to the Magisterium and what the constant understanding and teaching has been regarding any passage. The Bible did not just fall out of the sky and now we have to figure it out. It has tradition.
From the Catechism:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Thank you! Something I can work with.
Now how do we apply that to science? For instance, I do not believe things were done in “chance,” as traditional evolutionists would argue. However, when it comes to chance, how do you explain mutations in humans? Humans have had mutations which have been neutral (I believe blue eyes was caused by a mutation), harmful, and beneficial. For instance, people with sickle cell anemia have a mutation which distorts the shape of their red blood cells. However, this distortion provides a protective factor against malaria (if I’m not mistaken). So does that mean God intended for that to happen, as it was part of the Design? Or is that something that was random?
The Bible says that God formed all of us, and we are in His image. But does the image we are created from get “imperfected” because we are human?
Now how do we apply that to science? For instance, I do not believe things were done in “chance,” as traditional evolutionists would argue. However, when it comes to chance, how do you explain mutations in humans? Humans have had mutations which have been neutral (I believe blue eyes was caused by a mutation), harmful, and beneficial. For instance, people with sickle cell anemia have a mutation which distorts the shape of their red blood cells. However, this distortion provides a protective factor against malaria (if I’m not mistaken). So does that mean God intended for that to happen, as it was part of the Design? Or is that something that was random?
The Bible says that God formed all of us, and we are in His image. But does the image we are created from get “imperfected” because we are human?
E
edwest2
Guest
Your dignity? What does that have to do with anything? You aren’t thinking that the cool kids will find out that you ran across a few people who look at the Bible the “wrong” way?
Anyway, here is some Church teaching:
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
That’s where the Church stands and that’s where I stand.
God bless,
Ed
S
spunjalebi
Guest
So the Church hasn’t taken a position as to the age of the universe, in other words? So doesn’t that leave that answer to science and also for individuals to determine for her or himself?
T
Turlock2
Guest
You have to understand, dear, that the dinosaurs ran out of food and all buried themselves looking for roots to eat.
This is an ancient question and comes up in many forms in any belief paradigm. And it is pretty clear from pew polls that there are not a lot of hard line faithers in almost any religion, maybe moreso with Christians. But the point, Angel, of having a religon or anything that frames a way of worshiping God for you, is that it is a way to grow in Love. That is always the bottom line. And maybe one day you will see that God cannot be framed by a religion or a science or anything. Love knows no bounds.
I really like your signature. Several women are featured in a collection called Love Poems from God edited by Daniel Ladinsky. You might enjoy it!
D
davidv
Guest
If you think faith and science are incompatible, I think you have a mistaken notion of what faith and science entail.
I would strongly suggest the you read Fides et Ratio which clearly shows that faith and reason (the basis for science) is perfectly compatible.
B
buffalo
Guest
Most mutations are neutral or deleterious. In addition, new findings show that DNA actively fights against mutations and goes through several repair attempts. This makes the evo scenario even more implausible.
Now look at this -
Code:
IDvolution - God "breathed" the super language of DNA into the "kinds" in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the "kind" that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.IDvolution uses the latest science, agrees with the constant teaching of the Church, St Thomas and St Aquinas.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church has ruled, infallibly, that the universe has a limited age. The universe is not eternal. The Church has not determined if it is thousands or billions of years old.
God bless,
Ed
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
back to “Darwinism”… :hypno:
Science is more than Darwinism. Why must we, EVERYONE (Catholics, Atheists, etc) get caught up in this as the end all battle between religion and science?
I
Science is more than Darwinism. Why must we, EVERYONE (Catholics, Atheists, etc) get caught up in this as the end all battle between religion and science?
I
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Hmm…interesting.
Coming from a Protestant and non-Christian background, I have been previously taught that it was possible to determine the age of the universe by reading the Bible:shrug:
I apologize of my query seems to focused on Darwinism, but we have to admit that it has had a large influence on science, even to this day. I don’t want that to be the focus of this thread however.
And yes…I understand that science is much more than that. The trick is, determining whether there is an exclusivity between science and faith.
For instance, could you really be a chemist, biochemist, biologist, anthropologist, etc. and still have a faith? I once met a girl who is getting a degree in biochemistry and she said for the first two years, the program literally tries to “stomp God out of you.” She however still had a very strong faith.
Coming from a Protestant and non-Christian background, I have been previously taught that it was possible to determine the age of the universe by reading the Bible:shrug:
I apologize of my query seems to focused on Darwinism, but we have to admit that it has had a large influence on science, even to this day. I don’t want that to be the focus of this thread however.
And yes…I understand that science is much more than that. The trick is, determining whether there is an exclusivity between science and faith.
For instance, could you really be a chemist, biochemist, biologist, anthropologist, etc. and still have a faith? I once met a girl who is getting a degree in biochemistry and she said for the first two years, the program literally tries to “stomp God out of you.” She however still had a very strong faith.
There is not a single scientific fact that necessitates the Catholic faith be compromised.
Evolution? So what. You can argue process all you want but at the end of the day you still are left with creation.
Mutations? So what. It does not compromise faith to believe that our genetic makeup can be effected by other factors.
Old Universe? Again, so what? We know Genesis cannot be speaking of literal 24 hour days, so what area of faith could be compromised.
In fact, my own understanding of science has helped strengthen my faith.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Haha, that’s funny putting it that way.There is not a single scientific fact that necessitates the Catholic faith be compromised.
Evolution? So what. You can argue process all you want but at the end of the day you still are left with creation.
And how do you know that? Because there are people who claim otherwise.
T
the_chemist
Guest
Science and Catholicism need not be balanced. To balance something implies that you must ‘give up’ aspects of one to make room for the other. Our world is one that exists with laws and properties which science has and continues to define. These laws are the workings of the Creator, who upon setting the natural order of things looked on it and saw that it was good. Unlike many other religions, and even christian denomenations, the Catholic Church is particularly suited to coexist with science. We are a Church that is grounded in scripture (a static, written, unchanging testament of God’s law and his people’s story) as well as a living breathing Church made of men from our generation. Men who are born in today’s world, with today’s problems, today’s technology, and today’s concern. Unlike a new age cult with no historical basis, nor an ancient religion confined to the constant reinterpertation of outdated texts, the Catholic religion is a living, adapting, evolving, Church.
As science progresses the system of our Church allows us to remain true to our foundations in Scripture while tackling the problems of the present day. Science and Catholicism are not merely compatible, they are complimentary. In my opinion, the same cannot be said about protestant christianity (most branches at least) since their belief in Sola Scriptura severely limits the development of their theology in modern times. (No matter how creative you are, there are currently and will in the future hold many developments that scripture is simply unable to address without being taken severely out of context)
What is not compatible with Catholicism is the religion of science. In fact, I do believe the very first idolatry commited was the worship of science. If we understand the word science as ‘knowledge’, then it is the curiosity and drive to ‘know’ that tempted the first man and woman to eat the forbidden fruit. This religion, the religion of science that places a fanatical emphasis on ‘knowing’; that is incompatible with Catholicism.
So to the Catholic who feels religion and science are at ends, my suggestion would be to really think about what makes our Church and its living tradition, organized structure, central authority and infinite global scope perfectly suited to benefit from the sciences.
As science progresses the system of our Church allows us to remain true to our foundations in Scripture while tackling the problems of the present day. Science and Catholicism are not merely compatible, they are complimentary. In my opinion, the same cannot be said about protestant christianity (most branches at least) since their belief in Sola Scriptura severely limits the development of their theology in modern times. (No matter how creative you are, there are currently and will in the future hold many developments that scripture is simply unable to address without being taken severely out of context)
What is not compatible with Catholicism is the religion of science. In fact, I do believe the very first idolatry commited was the worship of science. If we understand the word science as ‘knowledge’, then it is the curiosity and drive to ‘know’ that tempted the first man and woman to eat the forbidden fruit. This religion, the religion of science that places a fanatical emphasis on ‘knowing’; that is incompatible with Catholicism.
So to the Catholic who feels religion and science are at ends, my suggestion would be to really think about what makes our Church and its living tradition, organized structure, central authority and infinite global scope perfectly suited to benefit from the sciences.
T
Turlock2
Guest
Yes, it continues to be a fascinating question. One can choose the Bible as a viewpoint and then of course and necessarily, accepting those premisies (though there are many for each idea, depending on the religion one accepts) you can “know” that “x” is the answer. Of course,k then thatere are many who might say "no, it isn’t, because the Bible actually means “z,” or “y” or whatever. But that is “knowing” by faith. And many people claim that faith and knowledge are identical. Is it? One can choose science and be equally in error. Each person decides for themselves.
But believing is “knowing” from inside the Bible, similar to “knowing” from inside a faith. Both of those are “inside” the Universe and as a book or a paradigm can be known from the “outside” as well. In other words, the Bible has a history and can be studied in a scholarly way as well, as can religions. (About about the last thing people want to do is look at how they got their religion, because then they might have to think and change.)So the Bible originated with some nomadic tribes in the Bronze age roughly about 5000 years ago and had its current form “finalized” about 1700 years ago, with some disagreement even today between Catholicas and Protestants, And unless you are a New Earther, it’s pretty clear that Homo Sapiens have been around for some 190,000 years, a durn sight longer than those books. That is all to say that we can look at the growth adn acceptance of any religion, including Christianity, in a larger context. Unless we choose to limit ourselves to a Biblical interpretation based on one of the faith options.
But all that can be and is very very contentious and divisive. The very definition of a religious canon makes it at odds with the rest of the world, except that from within, any religion usually claims to be the only accurate map of the world. That is why, personally, I stay away from them. But Love is universal, like Music, gravity, kindness, electricity, cooperation, etc. Would you ask someone’s religion if you were drowning and they were throwing you a rope? I’d go with the act of throwing the rope, not with that person’s explanation of why they did it. Self recognizes self when there is dire need. Love and goodness transcend religion and can, if you wish, include religion.
But which is bigger? Which is finally more inclusive? Love and its acts that are reecognizable by any human or even animals, or some religion that has a specific set of interpretations about how and why. Who is the person you want on the dock? The one who grabs a rope and throws it to you, ot the several who are arguing about which rope to use, how long it ought tobe, whre it was made, its texture, the kindof weave it has,or whatnot? That is intellectual assertion. Throwing the rope is love. I choose Love.
But believing is “knowing” from inside the Bible, similar to “knowing” from inside a faith. Both of those are “inside” the Universe and as a book or a paradigm can be known from the “outside” as well. In other words, the Bible has a history and can be studied in a scholarly way as well, as can religions. (About about the last thing people want to do is look at how they got their religion, because then they might have to think and change.)So the Bible originated with some nomadic tribes in the Bronze age roughly about 5000 years ago and had its current form “finalized” about 1700 years ago, with some disagreement even today between Catholicas and Protestants, And unless you are a New Earther, it’s pretty clear that Homo Sapiens have been around for some 190,000 years, a durn sight longer than those books. That is all to say that we can look at the growth adn acceptance of any religion, including Christianity, in a larger context. Unless we choose to limit ourselves to a Biblical interpretation based on one of the faith options.
But all that can be and is very very contentious and divisive. The very definition of a religious canon makes it at odds with the rest of the world, except that from within, any religion usually claims to be the only accurate map of the world. That is why, personally, I stay away from them. But Love is universal, like Music, gravity, kindness, electricity, cooperation, etc. Would you ask someone’s religion if you were drowning and they were throwing you a rope? I’d go with the act of throwing the rope, not with that person’s explanation of why they did it. Self recognizes self when there is dire need. Love and goodness transcend religion and can, if you wish, include religion.
But which is bigger? Which is finally more inclusive? Love and its acts that are reecognizable by any human or even animals, or some religion that has a specific set of interpretations about how and why. Who is the person you want on the dock? The one who grabs a rope and throws it to you, ot the several who are arguing about which rope to use, how long it ought tobe, whre it was made, its texture, the kindof weave it has,or whatnot? That is intellectual assertion. Throwing the rope is love. I choose Love.
Because the day is not a literal 24 hours even now.
Just as there are leap days to adjust the calendar, there are also leap seconds to adjust a day.
In fact, these leap seconds are there because the solar day of the earth is gradually slowing.
A single day of the time could not possibly be what it means now.
Of course, there are those that drop the 24 hour period in favor of the day/night cycle.
But this cycle itself varies.
So we have no real way of knowing what exactly a ‘day’ was.
Literal transaltion falls flat.
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
what does that hae to do with OP’s question??
B
buffalo
Guest
J
JHow
Guest
Yes, and one can also be Jewish, Muslim, and many other faiths as well. Newton, Faraday, Einstein (just to name a few off the top of my head) all took the approach that because the world was created by God they ought to be able to make sense of it through reason and science. Their religious world-view motivated their sicentific explorations. Christianity is not anti-science.
Nope.
Yes, you can see natural processes at work and study them through science.
Yes. We have evidence of dinosaurs in their fossils - does anyone dispute this?
Without getting into old-earth / young-earth and all the rest of it, I think both religion and science are asking us to sort out what is true, what we really know, and what we really don’t know. Scientists are usually the first to admit the (considerable) limits of their knowledge, particularly in their fields of expertise.
- Status