C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Which is a dangerous, in fact deadly, slippery slope and we are currently seeing where it leads: the total rejection of objective truth.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
You’re mostly right. Jesus was no allegory. He mentions things only God could know. He tries to tell His disciples that Lazarus ‘sleeps’ but when they don’t get it, He tells them Lazarus died. Science has no business saying this or that part of the Bible is true since they can’t say anything about other religious texts. They can say, “We have found evidence that King so and so lived here, or we have found these artifacts which are typical of this or that country or region” and draw a few reasonable inferences but that’s about it. The point is well taken that putting the Bible to any type of test where “I’ll only believe this or that if science confirms it” goes beyond what science can study or do. There are no peer reviewed studies of the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.
The encyclical Humani Generis points out some of the exact same things.
The encyclical Humani Generis points out some of the exact same things.
E
edwest211
Guest
Science becomes the only - not really - source of knowledge. The more people who do not examine certain claims with a critical eye, the more that can be swayed, then science becomes an anti-God and anti-religion philosophy. It’s already been demonstrated that any criticism of evolution can be shrugged off with a few words. But “total compliance” is the goal here.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
You don’t have to participate then.
Really, most Catholics either accept evolution, or they don’t. My purpose in this poll was not to give every single variation of belief.
Really, most Catholics either accept evolution, or they don’t. My purpose in this poll was not to give every single variation of belief.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I’m most sorry, but you are simply in error if you think accepting evolution means “rejecting Scripture.” You have Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII against you. You have the Catechism against you. You have the greater theological trend since the days of Darwin against you. You have Augustine against you, who knew that Genesis was not a literal/scientific reading of scripture. You have nearly every popular/known Catholic evangelical, catechetical, or apologetic organization against you. You have the most well known Catholic speakers and leaders against you (think Bishop Barron, Fr Robert Spitzer, Catholic Answers apologists, philosophical and scientifc writers like Ed Feser, Trent Horn, Benjamin Wiker, Christopher T. Baglow, Dr. Stacy Trasancos, Cardinal Schonborn, Fr. George Coyne, who was once the Vatican’s chief astronmer, Fr. Guy Consolmagno, and so many, many more).
That the trend in the magisterium has been to accept the findings of science with regards to evolution is obvious. All one has to do is look at the development from Pius XII onward. JPII said it was “more than a hypothesis,” and Benedict XII both as Pope and prior accepted evolution in principle.
Pope Francis said simply but clearly:
Catholic schools and universities teach evolution.
You are ignoring Catholic teaching. You cannot set yourself up as your own magisterium. You can claim evolution contradicts Scripture and Genesis. But you will not find that in the actual teaching authority of the church, or on the popular level, either.
And, as this poll suggests, most Catholics who inquire into the matter indeed find out and realize that the Catholic Church allows for evolution, even of the human body. See poll results. The poll doesn’t make it true, but it confirms that most Catholics are interpreting the magisterium and the comments of popes as they are. They don’t beat around the bush and point to obscure comments or ignore recent statements as plenty of the creationists have been doing.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
And yet, not a single one of the people you mentioned has ever come forward with a detailed analysis of how evolution and Scripture can be harmonized. They say it can, but they never explain how.
This is am example of the misrepresentation that evolutionists perform in order to justify their theory. Augistine didn’t “know” Genesis was not a literal history, and he did not in any way suggest evolution. He suggested that it was possible to read creation as an instantaneous act. Likewise, the only authoritative document you can provide from a Pope explicitly condemns the leading theories of evolution and only cautiously allows for a further examination into the question.
How many stood with Athanasius? How many stood with John Fisher?
J
joseie
Guest
Whether you discuss it ,agree it or not the fact is that man/Adam has not came into existence with in a few days of the creation of earth as said in the Scripture,but it took millions of years.The writers even if wrote under the grace of God ,wrote it for reading and understanding by the ordinary people who that time had no problem in believing the 6 day story.Now even the Church,evidently because of no other option,do not have any objections in believing that the day need not be the present 24 hrs day.My view is that whether it is 6 days,6 seconds or 6 million years we need not bother as long as we believe that God created all and Jesus is really the son of God.I don’t know as to what is the problem in believing a 6 million years period for the creation of man which can very well accommodate the evolution theory also.Let it be from dust or from nothing,an explosion,a living cell,multi cell,and gradually by over a long period of evolution,to a human being,the Adam.So there is no need to unnecessarily make an issue like Scripture or evolution etc as both can go harmoniously.Only thing is that we should be patient and willing to understand as to why there is some apparent error in certain places in the Bible in the light of the modern scientific finding, rather than harboring some preconceived wrong notion about the sanctity of some Bible description.
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
There is a difference.
A
angel12
Guest
Nope. Completely incorrect.
G
Gorgias
Guest
If you believe that the account in Genesis 1 is a literal, historical account of creation. The Church does not demand that interpretation of us.
I love prooftexting! It’s so fun! It’s so misleading!
If you’re gonna quote Leo XIII’s reference to Augustine’s thought in Providentissimus Deus, then please read everything he says. (After all, Leo speaks for the magisterium; Augustine does not.
)And, Leo says:
But hey, let’s not stop there! Let’s look at the context of the quote you’ve offered us! What does it say, in context? Hmm…
(All emphases mine)
Augustine is one of those “Fathers” whom Leo mentions, isn’t he? Augustine recognized (in his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”) that there is real danger of scandal in asserting a literalistic interpretation on someone who knows that the science of the literalistic interpretation just doesn’t hold up to reason!
So… yeah. Thanks for giving us that quote. It helps us to see that Leo XIII is saying exactly the opposite of what you claim he’s saying.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s illogical, that’s for sure. Gabriel covered that question, when he talked to Mary. “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
So, sinful or not, it’s clearly mistaken.
This is a good point. Yet, we also cannot fall into the ditch on the other side of the street: we cannot say “it must be literal because it must be a miracle.”
Ahh, but the difference is that Moses wasn’t part of a magisterium that teaches faith and morals not only authoritatively but also infallibly.
If you think that evolution is “the worship of nature”, then you’re using a definition of ‘evolution’ that’s extreme. None of us here, either, think that ‘nature worship’ is proper. However, a proper definition of ‘evolution’ is not a “rejection of Christian dogma.”
I think both sides of this debate are guilty of that approach.
The problem is that your position is that any acceptance of evolution is a contradiction of Scripture. So, nice try at putting on the veneer of reasonableness, but…catholic1seeks:
Only insofar as it does not contradict Scripture. I have said this repeatedly.
Who in the world is making the claim that Adam isn’t a true human? After all, that’s precisely what the Church teaches!
Aah, but that assertion (“thinking, loving…”) is a conjecture, not a fact. Nor is it infallible.
The point is that they’re not in conflict – therefore, they don’t need ‘harmonized’, properly speaking. Theology speaks of apples and science speaks of oranges.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Precisely. And when theology starts speaking of oranges or science starts speaking of apples, nonsense ensues.
B
buffalo
Guest
The ol’ two books idea.
It is baloney. Revelation gives us a firm platform to understand human observations.
Genesis
In the beginning (time)
God created the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)
It was revealed right at the beginning and only recently science confirmed it.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Works for me just fine. If you have a problem with it, then that’s your business.
P
pianistclare
Guest
I think you just answered your own question
A day in the life of God may be millions of years.
A day in the life of God may be millions of years.
D
Dan123
Guest
Quote made deeper when you think about an apple falling on Newton’s head and giving him ideas of oranges
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure it does. It puts science as the main arbiter of truth.
C
Canvas
Guest
2 Peter 3:8
But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
A
angel12
Guest
Which is absolutely correct for some areas.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Then it’s your business to work it out for yourself. It’s unreasonable to expect the Church and the rest of the Universe to conform to your private imaginings.
- Status