Church Arian, Church Evolutionist

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultima_Ratio said:
**Vatican Council I (1870): ** “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing [ex nihilo], let him be anathema.”
Click to expand...
That is not what bpbasilphx is saying.
 
SugarMagnolia said:
I think you’re reading Genesis like a fundamentalist protestant. Genesis explains original sin in an allegorical way. Evolutionary science does not negate original sin; it has nothing to do with original sin. Sin is our nature; that’s why the newborn infant is born in a state of sin. Sin doesn’t come from apples (literal reading of Genesis) it comes from us.

Catholicism does not attempt to close our eyes to the facts of science. There are plenty of other Christian religions that reject science. Some of them even let their children die rather than taking medicine. That’s how much they hate science. Fortunately the Catholic Church recognizes the discoveries of science.
Click to expand...
Not really. If we accept that we are created by God then I would think that He created us in His image as stated. So as I see it He either created us in His image or he did not. If we were created in His image then we would not have an inclination to sin unless something in the past happened that so predisposed us. Thus while the creation story in Genesis is more than likely purely allegorical, I think it must point to something historical that actually happened that cut us off from God. And it must have been some monumental and it must have been something that happened pretty much at the same time to everyone that was alive at that time. Otherwise we would not all be affected by it.

That being said, if it is in our nature to sin, and always has been, then why do we need Baptism to remove that stain? If it is not something willfully done, then it cannot be our fault and I don’t believe that God will punish us for something that is not our fault.

As far as the discoveries of Science goes not everything we have discovered in science is or ever has been necessarily true. New discoveries are made at a fairly consistent rate that shake to the core certain tenants of science that were held to be true for years. That fact in and of itself should prove to people that science is not now and never has been absolute.

Hey if you can offer something that would explain why Original Sin exists without the free act of the will by a common ancestor to all of us I will be willing to listen. But if you cannot explain it in a fashion that makes ense then I think I will adhere to what I was taught. And that simply is that God gave mankind an order if you will, man chose to disobey it and thus stained us all.

As far as apples, I never said anything about them, the Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve for that matter.
 
SugarMagnolia said:
I think you’re reading Genesis like a fundamentalist protestant. Genesis explains original sin in an allegorical way. Evolutionary science does not negate original sin; it has nothing to do with original sin. Sin is our nature; that’s why the newborn infant is born in a state of sin. Sin doesn’t come from apples (literal reading of Genesis) it comes from us.

Catholicism does not attempt to close our eyes to the facts of science. There are plenty of other Christian religions that reject science. Some of them even let their children die rather than taking medicine. That’s how much they hate science. Fortunately the Catholic Church recognizes the discoveries of science.
Click to expand...
From the Cetchism of the Catholic Church
BAPTISM: The first of the seven sacraments, and the “door” which gives access to the other sacraments. Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification. Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist constitute the “sacraments of initiation” by which a believer receives the remission of original and personal sin, begins a new life in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ. The rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water, or pouring water on the head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (977, 1213 ff.; 1275, 1278).

I am only guessing here and it is possible that I am wrong, but if our nature is sinful and that is all it is and was not caused by something, then what exactly does Baptism remit?
The inclination to sin? Nope it’s still there
Sniful Nature? Nope that’s still there.
Anything else?

If original sin is not removed then what is the purpose of Baptism?
 
MIKE46 said:
Not really. If we accept that we are created by God then I would think that He created us in His image as stated. So as I see it He either created us in His image or he did not. If we were created in His image then we would not have an inclination to sin unless something in the past happened that so predisposed us. Thus while the creation story in Genesis is more than likely purely allegorical, I think it must point to something historical that actually happened that cut us off from God. And it must have been some monumental and it must have been something that happened pretty much at the same time to everyone that was alive at that time. Otherwise we would not all be affected by it.

That being said, if it is in our nature to sin, and always has been, then why do we need Baptism to remove that stain? If it is not something willfully done, then it cannot be our fault and I don’t believe that God will punish us for something that is not our fault.

As far as the discoveries of Science goes not everything we have discovered in science is or ever has been necessarily true. New discoveries are made at a fairly consistent rate that shake to the core certain tenants of science that were held to be true for years. That fact in and of itself should prove to people that science is not now and never has been absolute.

Hey if you can offer something that would explain why Original Sin exists without the free act of the will by a common ancestor to all of us I will be willing to listen. But if you cannot explain it in a fashion that makes ense then I think I will adhere to what I was taught. And that simply is that God gave mankind an order if you will, man chose to disobey it and thus stained us all.

As far as apples, I never said anything about them, the Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve for that matter.
Click to expand...
Obviously I don’t know the exact act of disobedience. And at least we are on the same page in considering Genesis an allegorical explanation of original sin. But there are fundamentalist protestants who read Genesis literally (hence my apples statement) and I thought I was seeing shades of biblical literalism on this thread.

Because I read Genesis allegorically, I believe it reveals far deeper truths than any literal reading suggests. I believe it was the dawning of the knowledge of good and evil that made sin a possibility. Animals, for example, cannot sin because they have absolutely no conception of good and evil. They cannot do good, they cannot do evil, their behavior is morally neutral. Prehistoric humans were animal-like in that they had no conception of good and evil; hence they could not sin. As the human mind evolved, people gained the knowledge of good and evil; in other words, they knew some things were good and others evil. Then sin became a possibility because people could freely choose to do good or evil.

I have no problem whatsoever with microevolution. Why should anyone assume God could not create the diversity of life on earth in this way? God could create life in any way he wanted, so we should not look at micro-evolution and say God couldn’t have done it that way. To those who reject micro-evolution, imagine for the moment that it is true: do you think God would have revealed the specific biological details of micro-evolution to Moses? Could Moses or anyone else from that time period comprehend it? Of course they couldn’t. God would have to reveal the truth in language that those people were capable of comprehending. Perhaps we see Adam and Eve as fully grown adults at their creation because at the time humanity first became aware of good and evil our species was fully-grown (in other words, evolved enough to made free choices).

I find it interesting that the second sin committed in Genesis was violence (Cain & Abel). Animals are violent; they kill, yet their killing is not evil. The wolf is not evil when it kills the rabbit because it has no conception of good and evil; it has no free will. Prehistoric humans would have killed other humans without any conception of good and evil. But once their minds evolved to have an understanding of good and evil, they would realize that killing their brethren was wrong. At this point, if they killed someone it would be a free choice (not a mere animal instinct) and it would be evil because they possessed the knowledge that it was evil.
 
MIKE46 said:
From the Cetchism of the Catholic Church
BAPTISM: The first of the seven sacraments, and the “door” which gives access to the other sacraments. Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification. Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist constitute the “sacraments of initiation” by which a believer receives the remission of original and personal sin, begins a new life in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ. The rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water, or pouring water on the head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (977, 1213 ff.; 1275, 1278).

I am only guessing here and it is possible that I am wrong, but if our nature is sinful and that is all it is and was not caused by something, then what exactly does Baptism remit?
The inclination to sin? Nope it’s still there
Sniful Nature? Nope that’s still there.
Anything else?

If original sin is not removed then what is the purpose of Baptism?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a ready reply. You raise some deep questions here. My first thought is that baptism cleanses us of the sins of our ancestors. After this point, we are only responsible for our own sins. If we were burdened by the sins of our ancestors, we would not truly have free will. But once cleansed, it is all up to us how we freely choose to behave.
 
Evolution as a topic of discussion has been banned as a topic on several of the other forums. I am following suit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top