Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not confused. The text says that a wild animal, a snake, spoke to Eve. I accept that to be an allegory for Satan, and you seem to also. What confuses me is that you accept that part of Genesis is not literal, but insist other parts must be.

You realize this is a contradiction, right? It either contains symbols and allegory, or it is entirely literal.

You seem to be saying that you accept that some parts are symbolic or allegorical, but that others are not. OK, I get that. How do you decide which parts are allegorical? Given that you agree that some parts are allegorical, why do you insist on young earth or deny evolution (given that the Church does neither).
 
So you actually don’t know what is actually physical event and what is allegory. A real snake might have just been imagery representing a temptation to do evil? Maybe there was fruit, maybe not. :roll_eyes:
 
😂 that’s a good one. And you’re calling that an actual animal stampede, not not imagery or dream!
 
Sorry, too much context missing to interpret that.
 
Last edited:
If a snake took up residence in your house, and spoke to you, you’d still call animal control, right? Or perhaps call for medical attention. Or would the local priest be your first call?
 
Last edited:
So the message is not about snakes or fruit? The fruit could have been real, but that is not important. That’s progress!
 
I’m guessing he’s on speed dial? Interesting that you’d not be concerned for your mental health? Perhaps the snake was just looking for companionship and killing was needless?
 
The story could have been woven around trespass. So while the fruit serves a role in the story it is just a tool in the story - which is about rebellion. There is no reason for us to rely on fruit as part of the actual events.
 
Last edited:
You’ve conceded yourself there might not have been fruit. And the church does not insist there was fruit.
 
Show me where science has said that a resurrected body has to comply with all physical laws.

It never has said that, as it has never said anything about resurrected bodies. So no, science has never said that is impossible. It has also never said that a resurrected body could not pass through a closed door, or that it could not be in two places at once - opr for that matter, that non-resurrected bodies could bi-locate. It does not address those issues at all.

Science has never addressed how matter was created; it has only spoken of created matter. You are confusing the two issues. And science has never said that miracles cannot happen. It simply says it cannot answer how it happens as it is outside the realm of science.

Science has not, to my knowledge, ever addressed turning water into wine - either positing how it is done, or positing that it cannot be done - you need to start citing matters rather than presuming to set up issues which science does not treat.

Science has never said that a Host cannot turn into flesh; but science has examined Hosts which have turned into flesh, and identified that is it heart muscle. Science, in regard to miracles, has admitted that is outside the realm of science. Science does not teach faith, but much of what science does teach can and has repeatedly drawn people to faith. Science and faith are in two entirely different realms of study. The Bible teaches faith, and it does so through various means; eye witness testimony, inspired stories, parables and a number of recognized ways of conveying faith. the whole issue of Young Earth is an attempt to “prove” that the Bible is history as we understand it today, as exemplified by attempts to prove how old the earth is.

That flat out is a misreading of what the Bible is, and people using the Bible to attempt to prove science wrong are at best misguided.

You are welcome to quote accepted science (not someone’s off-the-wall statements) addressing the Ascension, or the Wedding Feast miracle; but don’t spend a lot of time looking for it as science does not address miracles.

Which is to say, your points are not made.
 
Last edited:
Hold up! You’re a flat earther?

Ladies and gents we got to address this.
 
OK, so you are describing a symbol or an allegory. Something is either literal or it is symbolic or allegorical or something else. Something can have some symbolic elements and some literal elements, but what you seem to be saying is that you can call some symbols literal. That doesn’t make any sense.

You can certainly believe that parts of Scripture are literal and other parts are symbolic, the Church also teaches that. But, for example, the dome of the sky is either literally a dome in the sky, or it is not.
 
I think you have your Church history wrong. The fundamentalist view of Scripture is relatively new, and not Catholic in origin.
 
Are you saying that those in the first two camps can’t support their position with church teachings - or are you agreeing that all camps can?
 
otjm said:
Show me where science has said that a resurrected body has to comply with all physical laws.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific definition of a resurrected body. I certainly have no idea what that term means.
 
None of them were fundamentalists. They viewed Scripture based on the science of their times, and the Church does the same today. BTW, Augustine taught that the creation story in Genesis was allegorical.
 
Why is the Catechism and the statements of all the Popes in our lifetimes not enough for you? Why your insistence that the Church “prove” to you that she has the authority to teach as she does?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top