Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[Dan_Daly]

Sorry, but any such condemnation is based on woefully outdated scientific knowledge. I’ll take science over superstition in this instance.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The Babel story is a myth, a symbolic story.

First off, says who?

Secondly, you are combining two different things- myth and symbolism.

Something can be symbolic and still be true.

The deliverance of the Jews out of Egypt was symbolic of the deliverance of all mankind from Sin by Christ. It was also something that really happened.

The relationship between my wife and I is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It is also a real relationship.

I would agree that the story of the Tower of Babel is symbolic. It speaks to mans tendancy towards the sin of pride. I would disagree that it’s a myth. It really happened.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[StAnastasia]

I would agree that the story of the Tower of Babel is symbolic. It speaks to mans tendancy towards the sin of pride. I would disagree that it’s a myth. It really happened.

You are free to believe it really happened. I don’t know any Catholic theologians who believe as you do, but I will inquire with my colleagues.

 

[StAnastasia]

Condemnation of a heresy is a spiritual declaration by the Church.

I don’t sweat the small stuff – I’ve been called worse.

Secular scientific reports have no bearing on whether or not something is heresy.

Obviously they do, or you wouldn’t be calling polygenism heresy!

So you are accepting heresy because of what “science” says is more persuasive to you than what the Church founded by Christ upon Peter says.

“Heresy” is meaningless in this instance. There is zero evidence that Homo sapiens began with the mythological “Adam” and “Eve.”

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’m curious,

Do you believe that the plagues in Egypt happened as described in Exodus?

Do you believe that God led the Israelites through the Red Sea and guided them through the desert with a column of fire by night and a column of cloud by day?

The reason I ask is that you discount much of what is said in Genesis as myth, and I’m curious at what point, you believe the Bible becomes historically accurate?

I’d also be curious what the theologians you speak to say about accepting heresy being okay as long a scientific theory says so? Or would they agree that the Church decides what is and is not heresy, and that a faithful Catholic can not believe a heresy (such as polygenism)?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Obviously they do, or you wouldn’t be calling polygenism heresy!

No, articles and theories say all kind of things. The reason I call polygenism a heresy, is because the Church has said it is.

Pax.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you believe that the plagues in Egypt happened as described in Exodus?

They have the style of symbolism, but there may be a kernel of truth underlying some of them, although the anthropologists with whom I’m in contact discount them entirely.

Do you believe that God led the Israelites through the Red Sea and guided them through the desert with a column of fire by night and a column of cloud by day?

This smacks of symbolism, but if you want to believe it is historical, I have no wish to deny you that.

The reason I ask is that you discount much of what is said in Genesis as myth, and I’m curious at what point, you believe the Bible becomes historically accurate?

After the Pentateuch, although there are certainly parts of it that are more legend than myth.

I’d also be curious what the theologians you speak to say about accepting heresy being okay as long a scientific theory says so? Or would they agree that the Church decides what is and is not heresy, and that a faithful Catholic can not believe a heresy (such as polygenism)?

My colleagues in the Catholic Theological Society of America, and the Catholic Biblical Association.

 

[StAnastasia]

No, articles and theories say all kind of things. The reason I call polygenism a heresy, is because the Church has said it is. Pax.

The Church will eventually backtrack on this one. It has to, or face becoming irrelevant to a scientific society.

 

[Dan_Daly]

So, because you think the Church teaching is wrong on something, you are able to ignore that teaching and do or think something contrary to it, because in your own judgement the Church will eventually see the error of its ways and come into alignment with your own positions? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Will the Church backtrack on contraception as well? Abortion? The True Presence?

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Do you believe that God led the Israelites through the Red Sea and guided them through the desert with a column of fire by night and a column of cloud by day?

This smacks of symbolism, but if you want to believe it is historical, I have no wish to deny you that.

I asked what you believe. You are again confusing symbolism with historical accuracy. Something can be symbolic and be historically accurate. One does not require or exclude the other.

What parts of the Bible following the Pentateuch are legend or myth, in your evaluation?

Pax.

 

[StAnastasia]

So, because you think the Church teaching is wrong on something, you are able to ignore that teaching and do or think something contrary to it, because in your own judgement the Church will eventually see the error of its ways and come into alignment with your own positions? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Not correct. It has to do not with “my positions” (as you put it) but with alignment with reality. If the Church “defined” something in a prescientifc culture thousands of years ago, theologians have to ask whether the Church is still bound by such a prescientific definition. As I said, I don’t know any the theologians among the thousands who belong to the CTSA or the Catholic Biblical Association who adhere to your claim that “polygenism is heresy.”

Will the Church backtrack on contraception as well? Abortion? The True Presence?

I’m not in a position to say. I don’t know of any compelling reason for the Church to do so.

 

[Dan_Daly]

If the Church “defined” something in a prescientifc culture thousands of years ago, theologians have to ask whether the Church is still bound by such a prescientific definition

.

Humani Generis was issued in 1950.

Does the fact that polygenism was condemned as heresy within living memory- and not “in a prescientific culture thousands of years ago”, change your opinion?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[StAnastasia]

. Humani Generis was issued in 1950. Does the fact that polygenism was condemned as heresy within living memory- and not “in a prescientific culture thousands of years ago”, change your opinion?

No. The condemnation of polygenism was written in ignorance of what we now know to be true about human evolution. It is as irrelevant to the study of human origins as the condemnation of Galileo was to the study of astronomy.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not correct. It has to do not with “my positions” (as you put it) but with alignment with reality. If the Church “defined” something in a prescientifc culture thousands of years ago, theologians have to ask whether the Church is still bound by such a prescientific definition. As I said, I don’t know any the theologians among the thousands who belong to the CTSA or the Catholic Biblical Association who adhere to your claim that “polygenism is heresy.”

So now, having been shown that polygenism was not condemned thousands of years ago, your argument is reduced to:

The Church has taught something, and you disagree with it, because it does not reconcile with your view of reality. You are indeed placing your positions over Church teaching. The CTSA and the Catholic Bibilical Association do not define Church doctrine. I have shown you the Church teaching regarding polygenism. You reject it. You can not show me any Church documents supporting that rejection because there are not any.

“It’s not about my positions” you say- it’s about “alignment with reality”.

Well who decides what does and does not align with reality? You seem to say: you and the circle of theologians that you know.

What you are presenting as your positions and your reasoning for those positions is not in accordance with Church teaching.

A Catholic cannot choose which teachings to accept and which to reject. A Catholic who rejects some Church teachings is a heretic. A Catholic who rejects all Church teachings is an apostate.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I once, not very long ago, also believed in human evolution from lower animals, that the world is billions of years old, and dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

As I learned more about my faith, including learning the Church teaching on polygenism, I was faced with a choice:

A) Reject my Catholic faith and believe whatever I want to.
B) Accept Church teachings, no matter how hard they may seem to be, and seek through them to grow in knowledge.

I chose B.

At that point, I continued to learn more about what the Church teaches regarding human history and origins. Based on what I learned, I couldn’t find any reasonable manner in which those teachings could be reconciled with a world billions of years old and evolution of man from lower animals. You have reached the same conclusion. You tell me evolution can’t work if there is no polygenism. I agree. I accept the Church teaching as the Truth. Therefore, evolution is false. You reject the Church teaching and adhere to evolutionary theory.

The change in my thinking from one of theistic evolution to believing the Genesis accounts, was one that took time, and reading, and discussion, and contemplation. At times, I’ve been and still are, confused, embarrassed, and unable to understand things.

It’s definitely all been worth it.

The story of Christ is a true story. Without Adam…Christ has no mission. This is the primary evil that comes from the “big bang”, Darwin, and all the rest. They attack God’s relationship with man. It attacks our being made in His image and likeness, and it attacks Original sin and our need for a savior.

I’d ask you to prayerfully consider what you’ve said and what you think. You reject a Church teaching because it makes no sense. What other teachings don’t make sense? How do you really know Christ is truly present in the Eucharist? Because the Church says so. Scientific analysis tells you He’s not. If one Church teaching is wrong, as you have decided it is, what others may be wrong?

The choice each of us has is to fully submit to the Church’s teaching authority or not to submit at all.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Church will eventually backtrack on this one. It has to, or face becoming irrelevant to a scientific society.

Actually, the Church is already backtracking on this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

And the encyclical by Pius XII has an escape clause, see the posts by Razredge on this page:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

Dan, please read carefully through all this (I am afraid though that this is too much to ask).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Will the Church backtrack on contraception as well? Abortion? The True Presence?

I’m not in a position to say. I don’t know of any compelling reason for the Church to do so.

Precisely. I can see no compelling reason either.

 

[Jkimbo]

I have no problem with science or my faith. To think the world is only 6000 years old is well, rather narrow minded. One would have to take the creation account literally not taking in account that one day for God could be millions or billions of years for humans.

I believe the scientific age of this world and universe. And as such has no effect on my faith.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Actually, the Church is already backtracking on this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

And the encyclical by Pius XII has an escape clause, see the posts by Razredge on this page:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

Dan, please read carefully through all this (I am afraid though that this is too much to ask).

I’m happy to read what you linked to.

I will say though one can’t be “backtracking” from heresy. Something is either heretical or it’s not.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

You seem to be cling to “in no way apparent” and ignoring “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion”.

One of the reasons that something may not be apparent, may be that it is impossible.

For example:

It is not now apparent how a woman can become a priest.

It is not now apparent how two men can be married.

Those things are not apparent, because they are impossible.

Pax.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m happy to read what you linked to.

Great.

You seem to be cling to “in no way apparent” and ignoring “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion”.

One of the reasons that something may not be apparent, may be that it is impossible.

For example:

It is not now apparent how a woman can become a priest.

It is not now apparent how two men can be married.

Those things are not apparent, because they are impossible.

Pax.

Again, please carefully read the links.