Diggerdomer, you are right, and that is why we have perpetual fighting. Scientists have to recognize the limits of methodological naturalism, and religious believers have to realize what religious belief can and cannont tell us about the world.
Well, that is their loss. Catholic and other religious evolutionists can make excellent contributions to scientific study. Atheists will just have to grow up and realize that they are not the only people with something to say.
Cardinal Sean Brady - twinc
of course there are but GENESIS is so foundational and important that it is quoted in most of the other books and they all rest on Genesis,If you dont believe me just turn your Bible upside down and lay it down and you will notice that all the other books rest on it - twincoy vey! More Genesis! Gee , there are other books in the Bible besides Genesis-I wish someone here would discover that fact
sadly it seems they are not going to grow up or go up since they do not accept there is an up worth growing for or going for - twinc
(yuk,yuk)
maybe but Genesis is the foundation,centre and heart of the Bible - so if the foundations be destroyed what will the righteous do - that is why it is the object of attacks from all sides.This is why the gospel,without the foundational knowledge of Genesis,was foolishness to the gentiles as Paul found[1Cor.1:23] - twinc
I don’t understand what you are agreeing with. When Richard Dawkins appears on TV as a scientist and denies God, what is he saying? He is saying that human beings, who no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, should discard the God of the Bible as well. And this based on what he calls science.
What is being imposed on science? I think Intelligent Design has great merit, but it involves concepts that offend certain people. If science, as defined here, chooses to reject it, fine. I still think it has great value.
You are correct. It is the heart of the attack by anti-theists, humanists and atheists in general. The Secular Creation Story must be imposed. It simply says that all living things are biological mechanisms that created themselves – there was and is no need for any god/gods/God.
I’m agreeing that Dawkins is speaking way outside his competence when he turns his attention from biology to philosophical atheism.
ID is not science, but of course any theist believes God designed the world.
Amen!! Discredit the creation story, which then does away with the idea of original sin. If there is no original sin - then maybe sin is just an idea in our heads. If that’s so, my sin isn’t your sin (since it’s all in our heads anyhow) - so if I think something is OK, then it’s OK. Hooray, moral relativism! And if there is no original sin, and sin is just a concept - why did Jesus die on the cross? You are absolutely correct, twinc.
That’s what I keep hearing. We’ve become too smart, by accident, and now we need to turn all those stories in the Bible into symbolic truths. Adam and Eve actually existed. It’s explained in the Catholic Answers library here.
Why do you not believe in temptation?
But “temptation” is still within bounds.
Mea Culpa was being sarcastic, not claiming a personal disbelief in temptation. That post was just showing where discrediting the story of original sin leads to. If you first say we don’t need to believe one thing, then that will lead to us not “needing” to believe in another thing. Next, people will be claiming that there is no devil and no temptation–it is all “theological symbolism”–whatever that is supposed to mean.
No, temptation is real, even if the “devil” is symbolic.