Z
zerinus
Guest
We believe that matter has always existed, just as God has always existed; and God created the universe out of pre-existing materials.
zerinus
Does What Some Catholics Believe About Genesis Keep You From Converting?
- Status
zerinus
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
that makes sense. ive always wondered…god does need a living space.
C
Contarini
Guest
Why do you think this? Why would you believe God to be physical and spatial?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
If God has always existed, then what about the maxim that we are now as God once was? Did God exist from all eternity as a human being and then one day started progressing toward becoming God? I honestly don’t understand your theology on this point. (In other words, I am not like many polemicists who are quite convinced that they understand you and are simply baiting you. If you explain what you believe, I will be better able to correct others who misrepresent or caricature Mormonism.)
Edwin
S
Steve40
Guest
I agree. Like I said I prefer not to talk about individuals but if quotations are brought up. We need to speak the truth.
It is faith and morals without error. The statements from the Church on evolution are niether. By governing documents we are permitted to discuss evolution, not believe it over Scripture. The Pope’s personal opinion does not compare with the weight of the councils and Papal Encyclicals that came before it.
I disagree. If we abandon the literal interpretation without proof or by necessity we are bound to lose somthing. The best rule of studing Scared Scripture unless proven otherwise, blelieve what it says in faith. The literal interpretation of Genesis has not been proven incorrect or as just a story.
How do you know the literal iterpretation is not needed and who are you to make this judgement. St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII would disagree with throwing out the literal without good reason.
Their assertions carry more weight than the personal opinion of the present Pope. The present Pope has not reversed the weighted statements of St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII in an official statement. Until he does I will stick to what they have said.
I agree to some extent, with this additional note. When we look at what the Church teaches we look at the history of all the Popes all the councils and Sacred Scripture. This is Sacred Tradition which the Holy Spirit gives to us. The Pope and the Cardinals are men and as men they are not infailable. Even Peter, the first Pope denied our Lord. They are free to provide their personal opinion but we should be careful not to take personal opinions as doctrine or direction against previous pronouncements by previous Popes or Church councils.
S
Steve40
Guest
I do not believe the earth is moving based upon the scientific evidence available. Personally I would like to see the Michealson Morley experiment performed in space going around the earth at 170000 miles/hour. I think we actually would see an interference fringe if we changed the frame of reference.
Eistiens theory that the Michealson Morley apparatus compresses with motion does not make sense to me. The more logical explaination is that the earth is not moving.
This understanding is consistant with the view that some scientists see sub-atomic particles as a modern day eather.
S
Steve40
Guest
We are bound to the literal existence of Adam and Eve by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The tradition part is tied to the doctrine on Original Sin. The Docrine on Original Sin depends upon a literal Adam and a literal Eve. For a Traditional understanding of Eve physically coming from Adam read Church documents on marriage.
Read Pope Pius XII
HUMANI GENERIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING
TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
Z
zerinus
Guest
LDS scripture teaches that God has always been God:
Mosiah 3:
5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.
Moroni 8:
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
D&C 20:
17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them
D&C 39:
1 Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ
D&C 76:
4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.
Moses 1:
3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?
Moses 7:
35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.
LDS doctrine is determined by LDS scripture, not by LDS couplets.
zerinus
T
Trinitarian
Guest
I don’t know how to prove that the creation stories are not literal other then to point out that the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that life has risen in complexity though evolution and to highlight that the two stories of creation do not offer the same facts. We are clearly reading two creation stories that teach different points. How can they both be a literal telling if they disagree? How could man be created both as the last creation on the 6th day after all other creation was complete in the first story and also be created before the beast in the second story. Are we to believe that Adam was literally created last and yet before the beast? Did God create Man male and female together and yet create Adam first and then Eve? If the stories are both literal then God made other females before Eve.
It is such a blessing that God has seen fit to give us such a great holy Church that allows us to entertain these non-essential issues as we see fit.
Thank you Steve40 for pointing out that the Church requires belief in Adam and Eve as literal people. I have never read that but I will investigate that. When I find a source that confirms or denies that claim I will post them.
S
Steve40
Guest
I think you are reading the Scriptures more literally than I am and you are not allowing for misunderstanding in grammar and translation and tense or timing. English is not the original language of the Sacred Scriptures. The best view is to look at the way the Church Father’s looked at Scripture or even the way the ancient Hebrews looked at it. They believed in a literal 7 days. To this day our week is based upon it. As for scientific evidence of things increasing in complexity, it is false. A single cell if extremely complex and to date no links have been found between any of the species. That’s a lot of missing links, too many for me.
I
inthecloud
Guest
I belive St Augistine was a ECF. And he did not believe in literal 7 days.
Scietific evidence say otherwise no seven literal days. Get the head out of the sand.
Scietific evidence say otherwise no seven literal days. Get the head out of the sand.
R
rossum
Guest
Neither Augustine not Origen were seven-day literalists. Augustine suported an instantaneous creation and Origen said:“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”
A cell is complex, but we are more complex. There is much evidence of increasing complexity over time.
Links between species are indeed rare, but links between higher taxa are common.
It is seven-day creationism that has the problem with missing links. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. Where is your evidence of cattle, humans, sheep and cities from early rocks? We have all these things in late rocks, where evolution would expect to find them but none from early rocks. Early rocks have life, such as trilobites, but no sheep, no cattle and no humans. Where are your missing links?
rossum
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Wow! Talk about hubris. “I’m converting to Catholicism because Pope Benedict needs my help to understand the Bible.”
C
Contarini
Guest
Zerinus,
So can you tell me where the couplet came from? It is an authentically Mormon statement, right? Would you see it as a doctrinal error into which some Mormon leaders or theologians fell at one point? What is (if any) the official stance of Mormonism today with regard to this statement?
I was aware that the BoM doesn’t contain this teaching, but I may have vaguely assumed that it was found in one of the later scriptures. Thanks for setting me straight on this, but I would still like to hear your account of how the idea developed. Feel free to PM me or email me. I hope to cover Mormonism briefly next Friday in the last session of my class on Religions of the World (only briefly, in part because as you can tell I don’t know very much about the subject)!
Edwin
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Z
zerinus
Guest
The couplet was first used by Lorenzo Snow; but I am not clear whether he invented it himself, or borrowed it from somewhere else. If I am not mistaken, he was not the originator of the couplet.
The theology of it comes from a sermons preached by Joseph Smith, famously known as the King Follett discourse. In that sermon Joseph Smith is reported to have said that God the Father was once a man as we are, and progressed to be God. But that is not taught in any LDS scripture, therefore not official LDS doctrine. The idea of the plurality of gods, and that men can become gods, is taught in LDS scripture, hence is true LDS doctrine. The two are not the same things.
zerinus
- Status