Churches rejecting science altogether

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerfectTiming
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
razredge said:
The unfalsifiability of such appeals to divine intervention make it pretty much impossible to argue with people intent on holding their position in these matters, regardless of the evidence you throw at them.
Click to expand...
razredge, the beauty of the flood story in the Hebrew scriptures is how the author(s) took the Sumerian story and recast it in the idiom of monotheistic theology (which of course is our Catholic theology today). The flood – rather than being a flippant act of the capricious gods – becomes a cleansing vehicle for the renewal of creation, and God’s covenant with Noah (father of humankind) becomes later on in Genesis the foundation of the covenant with Abraham (father of the chosen people).

StAnastasia
 
Well I’ve been a member of the Christian Community for all my life now, …I’ve also never heard that science is “vicious”, “evil”, or a lie of the devil. Nor have I ever met a Christian who teaches their children “enmity” or even “disregard” toward science.
Click to expand...
Nor have I.
What Church is teaching this kind of stuff?
Click to expand...
The Church of the Febrile Imagination.
 
StAnastasia said:
razredge, the beauty of the flood story in the Hebrew scriptures is how the author(s) took the Sumerian story and recast it in the idiom of monotheistic theology
Click to expand...
This is a modernist view and unsupportable except by conjecture.
 
buffalo said:
This is a modernist view and unsupportable except by conjecture.
Click to expand...
Umm, as opposed to a literalist conjecture? A conjecture that contradicts everything we know from the sciences of geology, hydrology, plate tectonics, paleontology, archaeology, biology, genetics, and every other science?
 
StAnastasia said:
Umm, as opposed to a literalist conjecture? A conjecture that contradicts everything we know from the sciences of geology, hydrology, plate tectonics, paleontology, archaeology, biology, genetics, and every other science?
Click to expand...
Let’s look at a couple of the Giglamesh vs Bible points:
  1. Size of ark
Bible - 450x75x45
Gig - 200x200x200 - ( a cube? probably not seaworthy)
  1. How did deity react to flood?
Bible - God is in control
Gig - gods ran away from waters
  1. How long did it rain?
Bible - 40 days
Gig - 7 days
  1. What was the roof made from?
Bible - wood
Gig - slate
  1. Who made the decision to flood?
Bible - God
Gig council of gods
  1. What happened after the flood?
Bible - God promised to destroy humanity by a flood ever again
Gig - gods quarrel with each other, god Ea lies to Enlil. Utnapishtim and wife given immortality like the gods

Bible - God tells Noah and his family to procreate
Gig - Ea and Mami created 14 human beings to procreate
  1. What was the reason for the flood?
Bible - people were wicked
Gig - people were nosiy

Bible - God is sorry He made men because of their wickedness
Gig - gods could not sleep
  1. When told about impending flood
Bible - Noah warned his neighbors
Gig - Told by Ea to lie to neighbors so that they would help build the ark

How was the ark launched?

Bible - by flood
Gig - pushed to the river

How long did flood last?

Bible - 370 days
Gig - 14 days

Giglamesh is a corruption of the Hebrew account.
 
StAnastasia said:
razredge, the beauty of the flood story in the Hebrew scriptures is how the author(s) took the Sumerian story and recast it in the idiom of monotheistic theology (which of course is our Catholic theology today). The flood – rather than being a flippant act of the capricious gods – becomes a cleansing vehicle for the renewal of creation, and God’s covenant with Noah (father of humankind) becomes later on in Genesis the foundation of the covenant with Abraham (father of the chosen people).

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I don’t do Noah.
I do Adam who, according to Catholic theology, is the first father of humankind.
 
grannymh said:
I don’t do Noah.
I do Adam who, according to Catholic theology, is the first father of humankind.
Click to expand...
I do both Adam and Noah, as in the Easter Vigil:

"Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs, which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.
In baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament.
At the very dawn of creation your Spirit breathed on the waters, making them the wellspring of all holiness.
The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.
Through the waters of the Red Sea you led Israel out of slavery, to be an image of God’s holy people, set free from sin by baptism.
 
StAnastasia said:
Buffalo going alone up against the 1500 members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. This should be a classic pay-per-view cage fight!
Click to expand...
Cut to the chase - show me the evidence.

Refrain from your usual arguments from popularity.
 
StAnastasia said:
Buffalo going alone up against the 1500 members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. This should be a classic pay-per-view cage fight!
Click to expand...
For those unnamed theologians who do not use Catholic theology as a foundation, you are most likely right about a classic pay-per-view cage fight.
 
StAnastasia said:
Produce your non-fundamentalist evidence that Gilgamesh is a corruption of a Genesis original. Must be from a reputable exegetical source.
Click to expand...
First off - have you studied the post I made on the differences? If so you can see the logical fallacy of your position.
 
Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]
%between%

June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top