A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Exactly right.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for your reply.
There is an old problem here that I first encounted in the 1970s. “God? Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” That is and has always been the issue. Without tangible proof, there is no God. Telling a nonbeliever that I or the Church accepts evolution is not proof of the existence of God.
Jesus tells us exactly how we come to Him.
bible.cc/john/6-44.htm
The world tells us we must present a reasonable witness or face the ridicule of the unbelievers. Really? After joining the Church, you believe that the small wafer the priest is holding is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. That small box where you tell the priest your sins, what about that? You believe that the priest, acting in the person of Christ, has the ability to forgive your sins.
This struggle has been amplified by an increasingly pagan media.
Peace,
Ed
There is an old problem here that I first encounted in the 1970s. “God? Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” That is and has always been the issue. Without tangible proof, there is no God. Telling a nonbeliever that I or the Church accepts evolution is not proof of the existence of God.
Jesus tells us exactly how we come to Him.
bible.cc/john/6-44.htm
The world tells us we must present a reasonable witness or face the ridicule of the unbelievers. Really? After joining the Church, you believe that the small wafer the priest is holding is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. That small box where you tell the priest your sins, what about that? You believe that the priest, acting in the person of Christ, has the ability to forgive your sins.
This struggle has been amplified by an increasingly pagan media.
Peace,
Ed
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
It is not, you are right. However, if a believer opposes evolution *) this will be interpreted by many nonbelievers as being irrational and out of touch with the realities of the world. As a consequence they may deem what the believer espouses, the concept of God and the message of salvation, not being worth seriously considering.
I am afraid this is a major apologetic stumble block these days.
*) and the Church itself does not, only certain philosophical worldviews often associated with it
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What do you mean when you say theistic evolution? Doesn’t your addition of “theistic” assume that the theory of evolution by itself somehow undermines the idea of an intelligent cause?
I see no reason why we should think that evolution as it is understood by scientists is in any way contradictory to Christianity.
N
Neildown
Guest
1 - Roman Catholic creationists do not worship creation accounts - or flat earths - that goes against the 1st Commandment and all reasonable logic - so far as we know. If one must get technical and take “flat earth” into this despite the fact that it’s not of complete relevance to my argument creation account held for so long, no the idea of a flat earth] I could say that maybe Einstein’s theory of Relativity is more true than we thought - with our planet actually being, essentially, flat in supreme reality, but due to the bending of space and time in our dimension we perceive it as a round shape.
Now if I wanted to actually get somewhat serious about this, I could say that since the earth would be flat, it would essentially be the same with time and space - but since earth is made of limited physical matter it would only take up a small part of the lines of space and time. Lines, I might add, are infinite in mathematics. Thus, we could get a small grasp of how space and time are lain out before God, if we assumed that the earth was flat in such a sense, or one similar to it. I’ve bypassed several obvious factors in this, so I’ll fix those when I have some time to waste.
2 - I do not recall the genesis account of creation actually stating the earth was flat. When one says the “literal” interpretation, it does not necessarily mean “as a whole” that it was completely literal. When Genesis says “Let the earth bring forth the green herb,” for instance, it obviously doesn’t mean that the earth literally took some green herbs and brought it forth to some destination.
E
edwest2
Guest
Alright, let’s remove this stumbling block. Then what? That wafer is God. That priest has the ability to forgive your sins. You must go to Mass. You must pray.
Where does the rational person, grounded in reality, get the ability to accept any of this?
Peace,
Ed
M
minkymurph
Guest
Absolutely. I heard many an atheist say that unless God shows Himself to them personally, they will not believe and right again, telling a non-believer the Church accepts evolution is proof God exists. That’s why the evolution/existence of God topics should be taken as two separate issues. I did discussed this in one of my other posts.
No, it’s not about doing what the world tell us to do. Jesus asks to us to present a reasonable witness. Jesus does not ask us to stick rigidly to an opinion, which is what ID is, despite valid arguments against it because we can’t make it fit literal interpretations of Genesis. Refuting scientific evidence that supports physical evolution because it doesn’t fit literal interpretations of Genesis is unreasonable.
I did address a question similar to this in another post. It was said that we should not accept evolution just because we don’t want to be ridicule, and we shouldn’t pander to atheists. My was the very fact we believe in God makes us unacceptable to some atheists, and there are plenty of other things, like our belief in transubstantiation, they would ridicule us for. Therefore, it cannot be said that theists accept evolution just because they don’t want atheists laughing at them. That being the case, there must be other reasons which are being discussed here.
E
edwest2
Guest
What are the other reasons?
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
M
minkymurph
Guest
If you backtrack on this thread you will find reasons why theists accept evolution other than, ‘they don’t want to laughed at by atheists.’ They have been discussed at great length by others as well as myself in previous posts. I know it may be a pain to read through the whole thread again. But it’s equally painful to outline the reasons that have already outlined in great detail again.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I had a good and important conversation over dinner last night with my atheist friend about what the Church says about salvation and why there can only be one God, why Allah is the same God as the Christian God (as the Church affirms *) ) and why Zeus and Odin don’t count.
He only listens to me because I gained his respect by being on the side of science and rationality.
*) CCC paragraph 841
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Only by God’s grace. But the rational person can only be open to the message if the messenger is rationally credible.
E
edwest2
Guest
So the rational person will listen if the person speaking to him agrees with science? And then after, the same rational person accepts the words of Jesus Christ? What is born of the spirit is spirit?
I don’t see the connection. By God’s grace, I’ve done some street witnessing. I usually had no idea if the people I spoke to believed anything. I’ve read a few atheist conversion stories. They usually involve the fact that the Church is telling the truth. That it is preaching the Gospel.
Peace,
Ed
I don’t see the connection. By God’s grace, I’ve done some street witnessing. I usually had no idea if the people I spoke to believed anything. I’ve read a few atheist conversion stories. They usually involve the fact that the Church is telling the truth. That it is preaching the Gospel.
Peace,
Ed
Not knowing anything at all (or even heard of before) vitalism, I can assure you that is not my point.
The point is that the is either life or death.
You either hit the target or you do not. You do not have anything that is half alive.
You are laying claim that every distinct strand of DNA is a new way to be alive.
Therefore you are hinging life upon the DNA.
Without some proof that life is in the DNA, it is unscientific to make the claim.
It does not matter how far or how fast if you are headed in the wrong direction.
B
buffalo
Guest
Source?
B
buffalo
Guest
The basis of IDvolution is the constant teaching and understanding of the church. Catholics and at least this Catholic ID’er understand Scripture as to what the author intended to convey preserved by the Magisterium.
B
buffalo
Guest
Provided the necessary (name removed by moderator)ut of information.
R
ricmat
Guest
And what was it about your scientific argument for salvation that most impressed your friend?
B
buffalo
Guest
Checkout St Augustine on Prime Matter - Chapter IVI can’t pick a choice in the poll. I believe in a theistic theory of evolution which meets Church criteria, one of which is that God created everything ex nihilo. So I believe in both evolution and creationism.
If you are referring to creationism as God creating living organisms in their current form - no, I do not believe that although I am positive that God, being omniscient, was certainly aware of what those current forms would be when He created everything ex nihilo.
And, being omniscient and omnipotent and really darn smart, God may have used Intelligent Design when He created everything ex nihilo. I’ve tried to understand what “Intelligent Design” really means and have failed miserably, so this is the best I can do.
I could click on three possibilities, two or one, or any combination and I don’t think I’m allowed to do that.
Sorry.
AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE
BY
HENRY WOODS, S. J.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
THE UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION
B
buffalo
Guest
I am on the side of rationality too. It is irrational to believe that design is not real or detectable.
- Status