Creationism and life in general

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Quote:
In the UK the secular society is becoming increasingly intolerant of Christian beliefs and values under the pretext of human rights! The pseudo-scientific propaganda of Richard Dawkins gives you a good idea of its pernicious influence on the majority who now regard religion as outdated superstition.
40.png
StAnastasia:
40.png
Protector:
StA, it maybe nothing more complex than the further watering down of an already weak Christian voice by virtue of the influx by immigration of non-Christians.

Protector.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
A wide spread belief in creationism will imply that Christianity is creationism. If left unchallenged it will inflict great wounds in so far as the potentiality for faith is concerned. The person who accepts science as an honest and rational approach to physical reality will be left with no choice but to remain a non-believer because of the misleading idea that Christianity is essentially 7 day creationism. It needs to be made clear that the idea of the world being created in 7 days 10,000 years ago is not an infallible core teaching of the Catholic faith. If Christians choose to believe in a seven day young earth creationism along with geocentrism and a flat earth, then it needs to be made clear to the public that peoples belief in those things have nothing to do with the core teaching of the Catholic faith, but rather is to do with cultural influences and human traditions.
Click to expand...
I would like to see this written from a positive, out going, updated Catholic, yes Catholic, approach. By the way, the use of the cliche “flat earth” discredits the piece.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, that is not what MindOverMatter2 is saying. The point is not that science brings people to the faith, but that people who see Christians arguing either that you must reject standard science in favor of a young earth, or that what we think about science is indifferent, will think that Christians are either ignorant or malevolently opposed to learning and education (Augustine himself spoke on this).

Accepting what astronomers and geologists and paleontologists say has nothing to do with Eucharist or confession or the communion of saints. If it did, why would there be priests who are scientists?

Of course! Who ever said that science is the bridge?

MindOverMatter2 is saying nothing about science being the necessary apologetic. Reread his/her post.
Click to expand...
One of these days, I would like to see something written from a Catholic viewpoint.
 
ricmat said:
StAnastasia;7960027:
Code: 
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **tonyrey**
Click to expand...
Code: 
				[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7959901#post7959901) 				
			*
Sure, many models: God is father and mother, lover and friend, advocate, creator, sustainer, sanctifier, shepherd, etc.*

Wow. Shepherd is in. Designer is out. 🤷
I wish to clarify that it was StAnastasia who wrote the above statements in response to my statement that it is necessary to think of God as a loving Father if one is a Christian.
Nothing can override that fact given that it was Jesus who revealed it to us.
Click to expand...
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
A wide spread belief in creationism will imply that Christianity is creationism. If left unchallenged it will inflict great wounds in so far as the potentiality for faith is concerned. The person who accepts science as an honest and rational approach to physical reality will be left with no choice but to remain a non-believer because of the misleading idea that Christianity is essentially 7 day creationism. It needs to be made clear that the idea of the world being created in 7 days 10,000 years ago is not an infallible core teaching of the Catholic faith. If Christians choose to believe in a seven day young earth creationism along with geocentrism and a flat earth, then it needs to be made clear to the public that peoples belief in those things have nothing to do with the core teaching of the Catholic faith, but rather is to do with cultural influences and human traditions.
Click to expand...
MindOverMatter2, thank you for this clear and elegant statement!
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
A wide spread belief in creationism will imply that Christianity is creationism.
Click to expand...
No. That’s a wild leap. Most people know that there are many aspects and differing beliefs in Christianity.

It would be better to spend our energy on teaching the core beliefs about the resurrection, virgin birth, etc. But, oh wait, those are not approved by science, so people will reject it, and that’s bad for faith. Too bad.

Speak the Truth. (T)ruth is not found in science books.
MindOverMatter2 said:
If left unchallenged it will inflict great wounds in so far as the potentiality for faith is concerned. The person who accepts science as an honest and rational approach to physical reality will be left with no choice but to remain a non-believer because of the misleading idea that Christianity is essentially 7 day creationism.
Click to expand...
“No choice!” Give us a break here.

There are many who accept science as a rational approach to reality, but still believe in the resurrection, etc. which science says is impossible. To believe in Christianity carries with it some things which will not be accepted “by the world.”

I would remind everyone that belief in God is on the entrance exam to heaven, belief in any particular scientific theory is not. I suspect that there will be many creationists in heaven. Faith in science doesn’t get you there.
MindOverMatter2 said:
It needs to be made clear that the idea of the world being created in 7 days 10,000 years ago is not an infallible core teaching of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
It is not an infallible core teaching. Neither is it condemned. Catholics are allowed to believe this if they wish (personally, I don’t). Those who object to this allowed viewpoint can just ignore it. And no, it doesn’t need to be addressed. One can sense real panic in the posts of those who insist that creationism be crushed. That ID must be crushed. They must be ridiculed, if necessary (flat earth style), and all of that professed tolerance and kum-bye-ah may now be thrown out the window. We see evidence here that some wish to change Catholic doctrine to match up with the science-truth-du-jour. Is that what we should do, mindovermatter2?
MindOverMatter2 said:
If Christians choose to believe in a seven day young earth creationism along with geocentrism and a flat earth, then it needs to be made clear to the public that peoples belief in those things have nothing to do with the core teaching of the Catholic faith, but rather is to do with cultural influences and human traditions.
Click to expand...
Certainly it is good for the public become clear about the core teachings of the Catholic Church. Belief in evolution is not one of them. Belief in unscientific things which I mentioned above ARE among them.
 
ricmat said:
We see evidence here that some wish to change Catholic doctrine to match up with the science-truth-du-jour. Is that what we should do, mindovermatter2?
Click to expand...
It is time for a bit of honesty.
 
StAnastasia said:
Physician, heal thyself.
Click to expand...
I have been totally honest about Catholic teachings.

I have been totally honest regarding my intention to defend the reality of Adam & Eve according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

May I respectfully ask for your honesty?
 
StAnastasia said:
As have I.

As have I.

The request is mutual.
Click to expand...
This response is a good example of newspeak. Please see post 683.

You may have the last word in this particular exchange. However, I will continue to defend the reality of Adam & Eve.😉
 
grannymh said:
However, I will continue to defend the reality of Adam & Eve.
Click to expand...
Why should belief in evolution be inconsistent with the belief that a man and a woman chose to sin for the very first time in prehistory?
 
grannymh said:
This response is a good example of newspeak. Please see post 683. You may have the last word in this particular exchange. However, I will continue to defend the reality of Adam & Eve.😉
Click to expand...
Charity, dear sister in Christ!
 
tonyrey said:
Why should belief in evolution be inconsistent with the belief that a man and a woman chose to sin for the very first time in prehistory?
Click to expand...
May I respectfully ask which “belief in evolution” are you refering to?

Those who want to bring down Catholicism sometimes use generalizations so as to hide their real intent. This is why Catholic apologetics needs to be updated. For example. Belief in the evolution of bacteria would not, in itself, contradict the Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the human person. Belief in the evolutionary theory that there is no need for a soul’s existence is a direct attack on everything Catholics believe about Adam and Eve and original sin.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not live in prehistory. They lived at the dawn of history which places them as the sole parents of the human species. (CCC 289 & 390)
 
tonyrey said:
ricmat;7960136:
I wish to clarify that it was StAnastasia who wrote the above statements in response to my statement that it is necessary to think of God as a loving
Click to expand...
Father if one is a Christian.
Nothing can override that fact given that it was Jesus who revealed it to us.

Elizabeth Johnson notes,
“The puzzling thing is that female images found in scripture are criticized as being against church teaching, while other non-biblical images, such as the African American image that ‘God is black,’ are not so criticized. I have tried to fathom why the Statement finds this female language so objectionable, and wonder if it is due to the fact that these images have come newly into speech mainly by the efforts of women. I could be wrong about this. But this is indeed a new phenomenon in the history of Christianity. Long silent and invisible in shaping the public culture of the church, baptized members of the community of the church who are women are trying to reclaim the fullness of their theomorphic and christomorphic identity.”

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/johnson-letter-us-bishops-doctrine-committee
Click to expand...
 
StA -

It appears that you have a formatting problem in your post above. That wasn’t my quote that you quoted. There have been a whole slew of mis-formattings…not sure what is going on :confused:

ricmat
 
ricmat said:
StA - It appears that you have a formatting problem in your post above. That wasn’t my quote that you quoted. There have been a whole slew of mis-formattings…not sure what is going on :confused:ricmat
Click to expand...
Sorry ricmat – I don’t know how that happened. I’ll be more attentive to quote brackets!
 
For anyone’s information, one of the best explanations for biblical male images goes to the heart of Hebrew writing. This can be found in an old issue of the magazine Christianity Today. Unfortunately, I am not at home to find the citation. When I say old, it could be close to twenty years. As I recall, Hebrew language is the issue.

The difficulty which some women have regarding “language” is that some have forgotten the true goal of their lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top