Do evangelicals really believe that humans are only 6000 years old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesCollins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize.😊

For a moment I thought you were being a smart *** but now I see that you agree that the church at one point in time did some pretty horrible things that JPII apologized for. If you read that Friar’s full bio, you’ll see that most of the charges against him were trumped up by a kangaroo court because he had the gall to suggest the earth revolves around the sun and the sun was millions of years old. *** Heresy***, they said, why the sun could be no older than 5-6 thousand years old! In fact the date of creation was 4004 B.C. *** Burn him at the stake!

I was just pointing out that if we think people are so stupid for thinking the world is less than 10k years old, they should be informed that prior to the 20th century our Church believed that too. We also pretty much believed that everything in the Bible was literally true as well. Now we are much more ***evolved ***than that.:cool:.

And God could have created a young earth if he wanted to…which is why these so called dummy’s believe this.

Again sorry for misjudging.
No need to apologize, my friend. Just tone down the rhetoric a bit. 🙂

As for Fr. Giordano Bruno:

In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned, handed over to the secular power, and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome. Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
link

(it’s interesting to note that he was excommunicated by the Calvinists and the Lutherans!)
 
No need to apologize, my friend. Just tone down the rhetoric a bit. 🙂

As for Fr. Giordano Bruno:
In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned, handed over to the secular power, and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome. Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.link

(it’s interesting to note that he was excommunicated by the Calvinists and the Lutherans!)
Those charges were always trumped up against scientists. Jesus would not have condemned him to death. And I expect more from Rome than from Protestants, so that’s really no justification. He was condemned to die because of his scientific views and Pope John Paul 2 admitted in an apology that it was a terrible sin what was done to him.
 
I apologize.😊

For a moment I thought you were being a smart *** but now I see that you agree that the church at one point in time did some pretty horrible things that JPII apologized for. If you read that Friar’s full bio, you’ll see that most of the charges against him were trumped up by a kangaroo court because he had the gall to suggest the earth revolves around the sun and the sun was millions of years old. *** Heresy***, they said, why the sun could be no older than 5-6 thousand years old! In fact the date of creation was 4004 B.C. *** Burn him at the stake!

I was just pointing out that if we think people are so stupid for thinking the world is less than 10k years old, they should be informed that prior to the 20th century our Church believed that too. We also pretty much believed that everything in the Bible was literally true as well. Now we are much more ***evolved ***than that.:cool:.

And God could have created a young earth if he wanted to…which is why these so called dummy’s believe this.

Again sorry for misjudging.
I think it is important clarify that “church members” have done bad things, not the Church herself.
 
Those charges were always trumped up against scientists. Jesus would not have condemned him to death. And I expect more from Rome than from Protestants, so that’s really no justification. He was condemned to die because of his scientific views and Pope John Paul 2 admitted in an apology that it was a terrible sin what was done to him.
Eyes,

please let us know where you’re getting your information. Nothing in the wiki article that you posted suggest that ‘charges were trumped up’.

From the wiki article:

Frances Yates rejects what she describes as the “legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth.” Yates however writes that “the Church was… perfectly within its rights if it included philosophical points in its condemnation of Bruno’s heresies” because “the philosophical points were quite inseparable from the heresies.”

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When …] Bruno …] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.”
 
Eyes,

please let us know where you’re getting your information. Nothing in the wiki article that you posted suggest that ‘charges were trumped up’.

From the wiki article:Frances Yates rejects what she describes as the “legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth.” Yates however writes that “the Church was… perfectly within its rights if it included philosophical points in its condemnation of Bruno’s heresies” because “the philosophical points were quite inseparable from the heresies.”

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When …] Bruno …] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.”
Why are you defending the inquisition? This is the kind of stuff that makes you sound like a Holocaust denier or a defender of the priest sex scandal. I am not saying you are those things but defending evil acts makes you sound like either a loon or an extremist.
  1. Do you think Jesus Christ would have approved of the inquisition?
    2. The final word on the inquistion was Saint John Paul II’s apology for it. It was not justified no matter what any archbishop said. End of story.
There are some things not debatable. This is one of them.
An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.
— Pope John Paul II %between%
 
I think it is important clarify that “church members” have done bad things, not the Church herself.
I have heard this claim before. What would be the difference between a particular pope ordering something horrific, and the church itself engaging in something horrific?

In order for your quote to make sense to me, I would need to understand what would be required in order for the Church to be responsible for something. What are the criteria for determining this?
 
I have heard this claim before. What would be the difference between a particular pope ordering something horrific, and the church itself engaging in something horrific?

In order for your quote to make sense to me, I would need to understand what would be required in order for the Church to be responsible for something. What are the criteria for determining this?
Defending evil acts done in the name of Jesus Christ is never going to be a witness to folks like this. The excuse is always worse than the crime.
 
Why are you defending the inquisition? This is the kind of stuff that makes you sound like a Holocaust denier or a defender of the priest sex scandal. I am not saying you are those things but defending evil acts makes you sound like either a loon or an extremist.
  1. Do you think Jesus Christ would have approved of the inquisition?
    2. The final word on the inquistion was Saint John Paul II’s apology for it. It was not justified no matter what any archbishop said. End of story.
There are some things not debatable. This is one of them.
You are not being charitable. I’ve tried to be charitable, I expect you to do the same.

I get the feeling you’re not reading my posts, as this response above suggests. You haven’t addressed the points I’ve made in any rational way nor have you been forthcoming with your sources. 😦

Again, the Black Legend lives.
 
Why are you defending the inquisition? This is the kind of stuff that makes you sound like a Holocaust denier or a defender of the priest sex scandal. I am not saying you are those things but defending evil acts makes you sound like either a loon or an extremist.
  1. Do you think Jesus Christ would have approved of the inquisition?
    2. The final word on the inquistion was Saint John Paul II’s apology for it. It was not justified no matter what any archbishop said. End of story.
There are some things not debatable. This is one of them.
Why does #1 matter? I don’t even think you’re asking the question you’re really getting at (ie "are you suggesting the Catholic Church would defend the death penalty as it was used on some of those who were killed by such means during the time of the Inquisition.?) Otherwise, it seems like you’re trying to put words in Campeador’s mouth…

…and…

#2 is hardly an admission that the Catholic Church was behaving badly. McDonald’s may apologize for one of it’s employees selling a cold hamburger but it doesn’t mean they truly defend the sale of cold burgers…

People are people and the Church is the Church. People in the Church do bad things, just like people outside the Church do bad things.
 
Why does #1 matter?
**

#2 is hardly an admission that the Catholic Church was behaving badly. McDonald’s may apologize for one of it’s employees selling a cold hamburger but it doesn’t mean they truly defend the sale of cold burgers…**

People are people and the Church is the Church. People in the Church do bad things, just like people outside the Church do bad things.
We are Christians. That’s why it matters.

Orwellian newspeak.


An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.
— Pope John Paul II
 
Again, the Black Legend lives.
Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these supposed wrongdoings, including
  • The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[2][3][4][5]
  • For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).[2][3][4][5]
  • For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christiandom.[2][3][4][5]
 
Don’t you think if Scientists were consistently coming to the conclusion of YEC they would report such findings?
Probably not. A lot of science, particularly in academia, is unfortunately tainted by corruption and raw emotion of liberalism.
 
Pope says sorry for sins of church
Saving one of his most audacious initiatives for the twilight of his papacy, John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders. From the altar of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome he led Catholicism into unchartered territory by seeking forgiveness for sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples.
Fighting through trembles and slurrings caused by Parkinson’s disease, the Pope electrified ranks of cardinals and bishops by pleading for a future that would not repeat the mistakes. “Never again,” he said.
Centuries of hate and rivalry could not recur in the third millennium. “We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions.”
** Plea for brotherhood**
Defying warnings from some theologians that the unprecedented apology would undermine the church’s authority, the 79-year-old pontiff asked God to forgive the persecution of the Jews. “We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.”
Wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, the Pope sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights.
Ethnic groups had endured “contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. Women were “all too often humiliated and marginalised”. Trust in wealth and power had obscured the church’s responsibility to the poor and oppressed.
There was no reference to homosexuals, who had asked to be included for suffering theocratic violence. The Pope did not identify guilty individuals or name the crusades, the Inquisition or the Holocaust, but the references were clear.
Five Vatican cardinals and two bishops confessed sins on behalf of the church during the ceremony. Cardinal Edward Cassidy recalled the “sufferings of the people of Israel” asked divine pardon for the “sins committed by not a few [Catholics] against the people of the covenant”.

Yesterday’s apology was by far the most sweeping and an unprecedented act for the leader of a major religion. One of the highlights of this year’s jubilee, or holy year, it was the result of four years’ research by a panel of 28 theologians and scholars.
Disquiet that the apology was a beautiful gesture but a theological mistake bubbled to the surface last week.
Echoing widespread concern from liberal as well as conservative theologians, the Bishop of Como, Alessandro Maggiolini, said: “In whose name, exactly, is the holy father asking pardon? He is relying on a group of experts, but tomorrow another group of experts might come up with different examples.”
Other churchmen said the gesture would be seen by Muslims as a sign of weakness and by secular enemies as a cue to launch further attacks.
The Pope’s persistence in ramming through the initiative, despite resistance inside the Vatican, has doused claims that he has effectively retired and abandoned policy-making.
The document that provides the theological framework emphasises a distinction between the sins committed by the church’s sons and daughters and the church itself, which remains holy and immaculate.
Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St Peter’s Square, the Pope stressed he was seeking forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. “Only he can do that.”
2,000 years of violence and persecution
** The Crusades**
Pope Urban II, anxious to assert Rome’s authority in the east, sent a military expedition in 1095 to reconquer the holy land. The crusaders ravaged the countries they passed through and massacred the Muslim, Jewish and even Christian population of Jerusalem after capturing it in 1099. After 200 years of conflict Muslim armies drove them out for good, but the crusaders’ symbol of the red cross remains provocative.
** The Inquisition**
The attempt to combat suspected apostates, Jews and Muslims at the time of the Reformation spawned tribunals in Europe and the new world that tortured and executed thousands. Ecclesiastical queasiness about flowing blood led to the use of racks, thumbscrews and red-hot metal instead of blades; 2,000 people were burned at the stake during the tenure of Spain’s first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada.
** The Holocaust**
 
I don’t understand why some Catholics feel the need to deny what the Church admits. And I mean that both in the context of the OP, and in the context of the thread drift about past actions of the Church. The Church has no problem with modern scientific conclusions about the age of the earth, but some (few) Catholics insist on taking a more fundamental view. The Church has admitted and apologized for some past abuses, but some (few) Catholics insist on denying them all the same.

Why do these few individuals feel the need to deny what the Church admits? Sometimes it may be out of a lack of knowledge of the Church’s teaching, or a lack of knowledge of the scientific or historical evidence; but in many cases the individuals seem aware of both the science and the Church’s position and still deny it. Why is that? I’m sincerely asking.
 
I have heard this claim before. What would be the difference between a particular pope ordering something horrific, and the church itself engaging in something horrific?

In order for your quote to make sense to me, I would need to understand what would be required in order for the Church to be responsible for something. What are the criteria for determining this?
I’m not entirely sure how I would answer this as a Catholic either. Can anyone chime in?
 
I don’t understand why some Catholics feel the need to deny what the Church admits. And I mean that both in the context of the OP, and in the context of the thread drift about past actions of the Church. The Church has no problem with modern scientific conclusions about the age of the earth, but some (few) Catholics insist on taking a more fundamental view. The Church has admitted and apologized for some past abuses, but some (few) Catholics insist on denying them all the same.

Why do these few individuals feel the need to deny what the Church admits? Sometimes it may be out of a lack of knowledge of the Church’s teaching, or a lack of knowledge of the scientific or historical evidence; but in many cases the individuals seem aware of both the science and the Church’s position and still deny it. Why is that? I’m sincerely asking.
For the record, I’m not an Inquisition defender, supporter or denier. I don’t defend evil acts done in the name of Jesus Christ, whether done by Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. I’ve never denied the Holocaust or the Priest sex scandal, and would never presume to know the mind of Christ.
 
I have heard this claim before. What would be the difference between a particular pope ordering something horrific, and the church itself engaging in something horrific?

In order for your quote to make sense to me, I would need to understand what would be required in order for the Church to be responsible for something. What are the criteria for determining this?
Is there a Magisterial document instructing an evil act such as a doctrine or dogma?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top