Fundamentalism and the Bible

[TOME]

I would like to make a couple observations and ask a couple questions. I am not a fundalmentalist nor do I understand the Bible literally. I do not understand, given all that science and the best of modern biblical scholarship has given us, (as evidenced in the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) how anyone can be a literalist/fundamentalist - it just doesn’t make sense to me, it is just not reasonable.(Before anyone start scanning the internet to provide me links to show me why it is not only reasonable but mandatory for a good catholic to take the bible literally please read the rest of my post).

This brings me to ask a couple of questions, the first being despite the warnings from every pope from Leo XIII through Pius XII about the dangers and errors of biblical scholarship at that time, still there was a development of thought by our holy fathers towards modern biblical scholarship. This is clearly stated in Pius XII’s encycle “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (1943) where the pope states that circumstances had changed, due to the progress of science - in particular archaeology, from when Leo XIII issued “Providentissimus Deus” (1893) fifty years earlier. The progress of science made necessary th Church’s approach to Biblical Scholarship. I realized that Pius XII held that the principles of scholarship laid out by Leo XIII were is in effect (and still are - they are sound principles accepted by most scholars) but why is it that some here forget that one of the principles is the bible must be taken literally unless it is unreasonably attantable?
Also, why do those who hold the bible must be understood literally fail to grasp the full scholarship of Thomas Aquinas (it seems too often their knowledge of Aquinas is limited to googled phrases or sentenses of St Thomas’ about the literal sense of the bible and that’s it - nother about the allegorical or moral sense of the bible)?

However, as I continue to study the post here (and other threads) I have become convinced that what we find present is something more fundamental than just a discussion of scripture. I realize that I may be bordering on a new thread but I think it is still revelant for this thread. Namely what is at the root of these debates is not a question of scripture but ecclesiology. I find many of the phrases and terms used by our literalist brothers and sisters are similar to those Catholics who sincerely believe that the last legitmate pope of the Church was Pius XII. The election of John XXIII was illegitmate as were the elections of every pope since including Benedict XVI. Thus, the writings and teachings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have no value as papal teachings and also Vatican II, the Novus Ordo and Modern Biblical Scholarship are attacks on the True Church and must be rejected.

Am I wrong on my assestment?

 

[po18guy]

Hey guys, on a recent thread I was really suprised to see the majority of people posting believed that the Noah’s Ark story was a factual account. I’m not in any way being disrespectful to those who choose to believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but I am very interested in how many posters here take that line and why you feel like that!

Thanks in advance!

Where do you cease belief? Once begun, where to stop? Why must we shrink God to the size of our imperfect, created intellects?

 

[NDBouchard]

So 50yrs form now if they say they have Jesus’ bones and that Jesus was married with kids long enough and hard enough will you start to doubt the literacy of those biblical truths too?
**You seem to be saying that because we might find out things that would make us uncomfortable we shouldn’t do science or history. While that is an answer, surely humanity wouldnt be far past the cave had we adopted your theory. **

If you can accept the virgin birth as a miracal then why can’t you accept creation and ythe worldwide flood as a miracle too then?
**Because there is overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary. You ask me to discard my mind and blindly follow a book. The Church does not ask me to do so nor require me to do so. **

That kind of thinking is what also leads some to say they think Soddam & Gamorah was just “allegorical” and the people were just “supersticious” concerning homosexuality and did not understand it “like we do now” but now scientists try to claim people are born that way or whatever,

**Perhaps we are seeing what you truly fear now. I see that you deny the evidence that homosexuality is a genetic condition? Why is that? The church certainly doesn’t deny this. **
**Yo brother, couldn’t help but respond to this one. Right, the Church has made no determination as to the cause of homosexuality. However, there is a large deposit of evidence pointing towards a psychological disorder and there currently is NO evidence of a genetic malfunction. Perhaps you have seen some evidence that I have not, educate me. Show me. I do know that there are shrinks lined up at the door to give credence to what I’m saying. Of course research is still underway in both domains. **

if they say that long enough and hard enough will you also cave in to that too and believe them over the Bible and just tell yourself well it was all allegorical. See what I mean.

**Yes, I see what you are afraid of. But that is not a good reason to ignore the truth. No one is suggesting that we throw out the bible you know. **
With that reasoning science can have you doubting everything about the Bible and thinking any and everything in the Bible was just allegorical to cover up the fact that you may lack the faith to believe in what the Bible says in the face of what mankind and this world system says.

**As I’ve said, you misunderstand science when you think it speaks to most of the bible. It does not. Actually it speaks to very little of it. **

Gut check: “Faith and Reason”, JPII. Faith and reason (science) dovetail…

 

[NDBouchard]

you have stated many times that you have learned that noah is just a story from catholic catechical classes, RCI, Catholic theologins in Catholic Universities, you are apparently contradicting yourself.

**Of course I am not. Where do you think these people got the notion in the first place? from science which negated the possibility of any worldwide flood. This view has been adopted in catechical material, RCIA material and so on. **

Well are you going to call Etwn and Father John Echert fundamentalist, and committing intellectual suicide very interesting indeed. " By the way your position which supports noah as just a stroy and does not include the possiblity that Noah is a realy global flood just as it literaly states is really contray to Catholic Teaching. Since you hold one view as absolute, and the church leaves the question at least open, makes your position one of intellectual suicide

**I suspect they are fundamentalists. I’ve not seen anything out of ETWN other than the extreme conservativism. That’s been well known for years. I know little about Fr. Echert. There are some vry conservative folks around. And I suggest that what I state is in no way against Church teaching. The Church still allows those folks to believe in literalness if they wish. I don’t claim that my position is the Church’s sole position. As I said, it allows for either, but just as clearly the Church acknowledges the truth of the former. Nice try though. **
. Answer by Fr. John Echert on 06-26-2002:
Though it has been popular in some circles to doubt the historicity of the account of the Flood in the time of Noah, I personally accept this as an historical reality. One argument which has been attempted against its historicity has been that there are ancient accounts of floods to be found among other peoples; however, rather than discounting the reality of the Flood I view this as corroborative. In other words, the presence of multiple accounts of some incredible flood in ancient times would argue in favor of such an occurrence, rather than assume they all borrow upon each other.

**He states its his personal opinion. and agrees with what others and I have said, some localized flood probably accounts for the multiplicity of the stories. No one in that time could of course have any concept of what the “world” actually entailed. **
One thing I look to in affirming the historical existence of figures of the ancient past is to look to the New Testament wherein many of the ancient figures and episodes are affirmed by Jesus and various sacred writers. This, in itself, lends great credibility to the historicity of the matter. For instance, regarding Noah, I note eight references in the NT, such as follows:"Right on!

**Attestation by later historical figures means very little. There is no suggestion they are mentioning these "events’ for their reality. They are clearly mentioned for their theological significance. There is no reason to give them any additional significance given that in 30 CE or thereabouts nothing significantly new had been learned about the size or shape of the earth. **
Brother, these events are one with the theological significance. That is how the point is made. This only assists in building the case for believing in the historicity of Noah’s Ark. Seperating the two = 0. LK17:26-27 and HEB11. Suspect…
.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Brother, these events are one with the theological significance. That is how the point is made. This only assists in building the case for believing in the historicity of Noah’s Ark. Seperating the two = 0. LK17:26-27 and HEB11. Suspect…

**Believe what you wish. The physical evidence belies the possibility of a world wide flood. There are numerous other impossibilites given the text as well. It’s attestation proves very little, other than that the story was well known, as one would expect. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Gut check: “Faith and Reason”, JPII. Faith and reason (science) dovetail…

I’m not sure what you are attempting to say here. Of course science must dovetail with faith. But that is through theological discernment. Science does not have to fit itself into faith. It cannot. Science discerns the meaning of the physical world. Faith explains why it exists.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yo brother, couldn’t help but respond to this one. Right, the Church has made no determination as to the cause of homosexuality. However, there is a large deposit of evidence pointing towards a psychological disorder and there currently is NO evidence of a genetic malfunction. Perhaps you have seen some evidence that I have not, educate me. Show me. I do know that there are shrinks lined up at the door to give credence to what I’m saying. Of course research is still underway in both domains.

First, I’m a woman, no yo brother. I won’t quarrel if you say the Church hasn’t yet made a statement. It would not surprise me. It’s usually the last to arrive in town. I’m rather shocked that there is NO evidence of it being genetic. (Interesting you call it a malfunction…given your apparent stance if is genetic apparently its by God’s choice so how is that a malfunction? But in either cae, what does it matter? There is absolutely no difference in Church teaching whether it is genetic in origin or a “psychological disorder” as you contend. I believe the psychiatric community and medical community differ with you on that anyway. Why would “shrinks” be lined up to give credance to what you are saying?" I guess there is some ulterior motive then. Your real purpose is quite clear.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I would like to make a couple observations and ask a couple questions. I am not a fundalmentalist nor do I understand the Bible literally. I do not understand, given all that science and the best of modern biblical scholarship has given us, (as evidenced in the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) how anyone can be a literalist/fundamentalist - it just doesn’t make sense to me, it is just not reasonable.(Before anyone start scanning the internet to provide me links to show me why it is not only reasonable but mandatory for a good catholic to take the bible literally please read the rest of my post).

This brings me to ask a couple of questions, the first being despite the warnings from every pope from Leo XIII through Pius XII about the dangers and errors of biblical scholarship at that time, still there was a development of thought by our holy fathers towards modern biblical scholarship. This is clearly stated in Pius XII’s encycle “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (1943) where the pope states that circumstances had changed, due to the progress of science - in particular archaeology, from when Leo XIII issued “Providentissimus Deus” (1893) fifty years earlier. The progress of science made necessary th Church’s approach to Biblical Scholarship. I realized that Pius XII held that the principles of scholarship laid out by Leo XIII were is in effect (and still are - they are sound principles accepted by most scholars) but why is it that some here forget that one of the principles is the bible must be taken literally unless it is unreasonably attantable?
Also, why do those who hold the bible must be understood literally fail to grasp the full scholarship of Thomas Aquinas (it seems too often their knowledge of Aquinas is limited to googled phrases or sentenses of St Thomas’ about the literal sense of the bible and that’s it - nother about the allegorical or moral sense of the bible)?

However, as I continue to study the post here (and other threads) I have become convinced that what we find present is something more fundamental than just a discussion of scripture. I realize that I may be bordering on a new thread but I think it is still revelant for this thread. Namely what is at the root of these debates is not a question of scripture but ecclesiology. I find many of the phrases and terms used by our literalist brothers and sisters are similar to those Catholics who sincerely believe that the last legitmate pope of the Church was Pius XII. The election of John XXIII was illegitmate as were the elections of every pope since including Benedict XVI. Thus, the writings and teachings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have no value as papal teachings and also Vatican II, the Novus Ordo and Modern Biblical Scholarship are attacks on the True Church and must be rejected.

Am I wrong on my assestment?

No I don’t think you are wrong. If you look cross thread on this forum, you essentially see the same group of folks aligned the same way on every issue…and its thusly:

All scripture is inerrent. Those who cannot stomach claimiing pure creationism, insist on ID and want it taught in schools.

All tradition and dogma is unerrent and has never ever changed in any way shape or form. What the church taught in 2 CE is what it teaches in 2007CE, to every tiddle. Any apparent controversy is removed by declaring the offending document or statement not infallible or part of the mageristerial teaching.

All social issues are black and white, expecially any having to do with sexual matters. Individually they trump any other combination of issues. The Church tells us how to vote and we do so. In fact we have no such thing as a conscience except for everyday mundane things. The Church tells us what to believe on anything important and we cannot deviate, otherwise by definition we are not correctly formed in conscience.

Anything whether it be science, hermeneutics, theologic methodologies which have been discovered within the last 60 or so years is subspect automatically of being “modern” and thus anti church. All theologies or methods of doing biblical analysis should be ignored or discarded because of this suspicion in favor of whatever the church fathers said 1500 or more years ago. This is so even though the church uses these same methodologies and does not prohibit their use and never has.

I think its clear that a firm break occured with the beginning of the Vatican II era. If it weren’t so long ago I’d suspect that most of these fundamentalist leaning Catholics were the same ones who left the church in the sixties because they changed the mass. But that would them at my age or older.

That’s my take.

 

[NDBouchard]

Michael of course we do. Every mountain range is either rising or falling, as they have done from time immemorial. We observe plate techtonics every moment, and we have instruments that measure the drift. If you knew anything about what you are attempting to speak you would know there are scholarly peer reviewed literature that abound both nationally and internationally. This information is not just published in “magazines” although it can in a few, but is reported in scientific journals and actual books used in classrooms across the world. I have given you more proof that any rational person could want from several highly known scientific institutes and websites. Believe what you CHOOSE, but it aint the facts, its your private fantasy world.

** Spirit Meadow, I like reading your comments. Some good info but some one-sided “misinfo” as well. I’m at an institution that is heavy on research (probably like yourself). I believe I saw in a thread that you stated that “creationism” was only a theological concept. This is false. It is treated, more and more so, on the same level as evolutionism, as far as science is concerned. You like to talk about getting the facts. There are a few threads where your facts are wrong (or very questionable). Correct me if I’m wrong, but you used the fact that JPII and Benedict focused primarily on the theological truths of Noah’s Ark in support of your defense that the historicity of the Ark is negligible and just a “story”. This is a misrepresentation of JPII’s and Benedict’s teachings/reflexions. Of course the theological/spiritual concepts of the “story” are the meat and potatoes. We agree, here. We also agree on the fact that the Church allows for both interpretations. If you truly want to do your research, check out this creationist, Walt Brown (USMA grad, MIT phd, professor USAF Academy). He is a solid Christian who was an evolutionist for many years. His interest was sparked by the mystery of the Ark. He did some poking around, and was intrigued by his scientific discoveries and devloped his research. Now, he is a creationist and invites creationists and evolunists alike, to discuss scientific discoveries without introducing religious beliefs. The book is entitled. “In the beginning”. **

 

[NDBouchard]

[Yo brother, couldn’t help but respond to this one. Right, the Church has made no determination as to the cause of homosexuality. However, there is a large deposit of evidence pointing towards a psychological disorder and there currently is NO evidence of a genetic malfunction. Perhaps you have seen some evidence that I have not, educate me. Show me. I do know that there are shrinks lined up at the door to give credence to what I’m saying. Of course research is still underway in both domains.

First, I’m a woman, no yo brother. I won’t quarrel if you say the Church hasn’t yet made a statement. It would not surprise me. It’s usually the last to arrive in town. I’m rather shocked that there is NO evidence of it being genetic. (Interesting you call it a malfunction…given your apparent stance if is genetic apparently its by God’s choice so how is that a malfunction? But in either cae, what does it matter? There is absolutely no difference in Church teaching whether it is genetic in origin or a “psychological disorder” as you contend. I believe the psychiatric community and medical community differ with you on that anyway. Why would “shrinks” be lined up to give credance to what you are saying?" I guess there is some ulterior motive then. Your real purpose is quite clear.

Young lady, obviously you are bitter with the Chruch. You have issues, then don’t we all. There is NO GENETIC evidence and you cannot prove what you are saying. Yes, it is a MALFUNCTION. Because it is SIN. Yes, the American pshycological assoc declared homosexuality as “normal” behavior in the 70s. However, there are many secular and of course religious “shrinks” that have corroborating “scientific evidence” that shows what the Church and humans would call an anamolie, a malfunction, etc.
**]Easy math… **Merry Christmas.
[/quote]

 

[SpiritMeadow]

** Spirit Meadow, I like reading your comments. Some good info but some one-sided “misinfo” as well.
SPIRITMEADOW REPLIES
**I make every attempt to submit correct information. ****
///////
I’m at an institution that is heavy on research (probably like yourself). I believe I saw in a thread that you stated that “creationism” was only a theological concept. This is false. It is treated, more and more so, on the same level as evolutionism, as far as science is concerned.

SPIRITMEADOW REPLIES

**As far as science is concerned it remains what it always was and is, a theological construct. Creationism creates no experiments and makes no predictions. It is simply not science either by itself nor in its pretended guise of ID. **
/////
You like to talk about getting the facts. There are a few threads where your facts are wrong (or very questionable). Correct me if I’m wrong, but you used the fact that JPII and Benedict focused primarily on the theological truths of Noah’s Ark in support of your defense that the historicity of the Ark is negligible and just a “story”. This is a misrepresentation of JPII’s and Benedict’s teachings/reflexions.

SPIRITMEADOW REPLIES

**Noah’s ark is an example. JPII was very specific when it came to the two creation stories. Benedict has generally agreed with evolution. Of course that by definiton makes the story of the "worldwide flood impossible. There are not enough years to account for all the species we have today by evolution. **
//////
Of course the theological/spiritual concepts of the “story” are the meat and potatoes. We agree, here. We also agree on the fact that the Church allows for both interpretations.
SPIRITMEADOW REPLIES

**But you seem to be missing the point. If the church believed in creationism it would say so. It allows people to believe either simply because it apparently does not wish to upset older Catholics who have lived their entire lives with these beliefs and cannot handle this massive change in orientation. **

If you truly want to do your research, check out this creationist, Walt Brown (USMA grad, MIT phd, professor USAF Academy). He is a solid Christian who was an evolutionist for many years. His interest was sparked by the mystery of the Ark. He did some poking around, and was intrigued by his scientific discoveries and devloped his research. Now, he is a creationist and invites creationists and evolunists alike, to discuss scientific discoveries without introducing religious beliefs. The book is entitled. “In the beginning”.

**You can put this into these friendly terms of “if you truly want to learn something” guise, but we both know the truth. There is simply no viable basis for concluding that evolution is not correct. Until creationists prove something by showing a model that explains the physical evidence, it will be rejected as it should be. Behe was upheld as the great beacon for Creationist evangelicals and he’s been so thoroughly discredited he doesnt even publish any more as I hear it. You choose to disbelieve for your own personal physchological needs, not I would argue because the evidence leads you there. To suggest otherwise is to denigrate the work of millions of men and women over 150 years. The hubris of making such a claim is simply unbelieveable to me. I have no quarrel with you. You may as we both agree believe what you like about this. But when one is not required to, others must suspect the reasoning behind those who still are determined to adher to it as being rather suspect. **

ps. your blue is hard to cut and paste. it makes all my bold just blue…sorry …hope you can figure out where you end and I start./

 

[NDBouchard]

**You can put this into these friendly terms of “if you truly want to learn something” guise, but we both know the truth. There is simply no viable basis for concluding that evolution is not correct. Until creationists prove something by showing a model that explains the physical evidence, it will be rejected as it should be. Behe was upheld as the great beacon for Creationist evangelicals and he’s been so thoroughly discredited he doesnt even publish any more as I hear it. You choose to disbelieve for your own personal physchological needs, not I would argue because the evidence leads you there. To suggest otherwise is to denigrate the work of millions of men and women over 150 years. The hubris of making such a claim is simply unbelieveable to me. I have no quarrel with you. You may as we both agree believe what you like about this. But when one is not required to, others must suspect the reasoning behind those who still are determined to adher to it as being rather suspect. **

ps. your blue is hard to cut and paste. it makes all my bold just blue…sorry …hope you can figure out where you end and I start./

Sister Spirit Meadows,
Alors, we both agree. Except you come across as a stout evolutionist and your words appear belittling to some of the creationists in this blog. This is why I’m challenging you to be more intellectually honest and objective in your statements. There is some misinformation.

My apologies to you if I was brash.

Of course, I’m not trying to tear down evolutionism either. We have to be open to it, that’s obvious. Equal weight must also be given to creationism and there is an abundance of scientific data out there that is taking on more consideration. You appear unaware of this and you seem to chastise the idea of creationism. And yes, among some scientific circles it is an accepted science of study -FYI.

(side remark) There was an Adam and an Eve. This is clearly stated by the Church. I have a hard time seeing Adam and Eve as a couple of apes…sniffing each other… (Sorry, too good to let go)

Also, neither JPII or Benedict have taken a stance on evolution or creationism. Show me this. Perhaps I’m missing something. What they have done is talk about the important theological concepts, which of course, is what we need to focus on.

As far as my comments on homosexuality, I made a mistake. I said that the malfunction was a sin. This is incorrect and I offer **my apologies **to anyone I may have offended. I replied in haste when running out of the office to play hockey. My apologies. There is a paragraph that needs to go between malfunction and sin. It is in the Catechism…

OK, I spent a enough oxygen on this blog for the week.

Thanks

 

[inthecloud]

As a stout evolutionist I add my two cents:

Equal weight must also be given to creationism and there is an abundance of scientific data out there that is taking on more consideration. And yes, among some scientific circles it is an accepted science of study -FYI.

1. Why one should give equal time to creationism if there are not “scientific data” supporting it that does not comes from
   fundamentalist evangelicals protestants. When I see buddist, agnostics, atheist or hindus doing “creations science” I start to reconsider my opinion.

And yes, among some scientific circles it is an accepted science of study -FYI.

1. Again, those scientic circles are people that in some case might have been deluded but in some other are just charlatans telling people without a science background what they want to hear.

(side remark)

There was an Adam and an Eve. This is clearly stated by the Church.

Some evolutionists also state that.

I

have a hard time seeing Adam and Eve as a couple of apes…sniffing each other… (Sorry, too good to let go)

3.Thats in not who evolution works. They must have been failry human when appeared.

Also, neither JPII or Benedict have taken a stance on evolution or creationism. Show me this. Perhaps I’m missing something.

1. The Church never condemmed evolution when Darwin was alive.
   John Henry Newman even supported Darwin.
   There have been hints from the Vatican since the 1890s that evolution might be right, at least in part.
   Pope John Paul II said that “evolution is more than a theory” and called it a settled issue for theologues. Also added in the Cathecism that religion should not contradict science.
   In other words. YEC is out as a future catholic doctrine.
   So Catholics, leave that travesty to the fundangelicals.

 

[manualman]

I voted “other”.

The Church simply doesn’t make dogmatic statements like #1 or #2 about the literalist interpretation of scripture. The Church does not insist in 6 24 hour periods for creation, not does she formally endorse Darwinism. She merely declares those issues outside here jurisdiction.

Catholics are free to either believe Noah and company huddled in a boat with 2 of each species on a totally wave-tossed earth or to believe that Noah and his family survived a cataclysm that destroyed civilization in that region. The historical minutae as we modern men see them were not considered important to those who recorded history in oral traditions thousands of years ago! Please remember that the Pentatuech didn’t see paper for MANY hundreds of years. It was passed down through oral storytelling. That form of communication is NOT going to work if you present it like modern scholarly historical accounts. Primary messages were important and they were couched in vivid and memorable details not central to the message.

I don’t know if Abraham was really hundreds of years old when he died either. But I’m not going to dogmatically say that he wasn’t either.

You gotta know when to claim sure knowledge and when to admit ignorance, not just personal but communal. This is one of those times!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Young lady, obviously you are bitter with the Chruch. You have issues, then don’t we all. /////
SpiritMeadow Replies

*Thanks I’m certainly not young, but thanks. And I have no bitterness toward the Church whatsoever. The Church has always been wonderful to me in every way. I have no issue with Mother Church, though I respectfully disagree on a thing or two. * //////

There is NO GENETIC evidence and you cannot prove what you are saying. Yes, it is a MALFUNCTION. Because it is SIN. /////
SpiritMeadow replies

*Homosexuality is not a sin. Hence, I would argue that since God is creator, no homosexual he created can be disordered. * //////

Yes, the American pshycological assoc declared homosexuality as “normal” behavior in the 70s. However, there are many secular and of course religious “shrinks” that have corroborating “scientific evidence” that shows what the Church and humans would call an anamolie, a malfunction, etc.
**]Easy math… **Merry Christmas.

///////

**Let’s assume you are correct. So what?Again, can you switch to black type? The blue is rather bright on the eyes. **

 

[NDBouchard]

///////

**Let’s assume you are correct. So what?Again, can you switch to black type? The blue is rather bright on the eyes. **

“Homosexuality is not a sin”… I hope you mean the condition, not the action thereof…?

I’ve got other things to do, my friend…Merry Christmas

 

[NDBouchard]

As a stout evolutionist I add my two cents:

Again, Adam and Eve existed. Church teaching.

1. Why one should give equal time to creationism if there are not “scientific data” supporting it that does not comes from
   fundamentalist evangelicals protestants. When I see buddist, agnostics, atheist or hindus doing “creations science” I start to reconsider my opinion.
   This is where you tread on thin ice. See a few threads back, my friend

1. Again, those scientic circles are people that in some case might have been deluded but in some other are just charlatans telling people without a science background what they want to hear.
   Wrong answer, nice try. I’m not defending creationism, and I’m not defending evolution. I like to look at the standing scientific evidence for both. I don’t know where I stand, yet. I do believe that Noah’s Ark existed…how about you?

(side remark)
Some evolutionists also state that.
This was only a joke
I

3.Thats in not who evolution works. They must have been failry human when appeared.
Again, this was a joke. I got it./COLOR]

1. The Church never condemmed evolution when Darwin was alive.
   John Henry Newman even supported Darwin.
   There have been hints from the Vatican since the 1890s that evolution might be right, at least in part.
   Pope John Paul II said that “evolution is more than a theory” and called it a settled issue for theologues. Also added in the Cathecism that religion should not contradict science.
   In other words. YEC is out as a future catholic doctrine.
   So Catholics, leave that travesty to the fundangelicals.

Could be true, perhaps not. As we speak there are credible scientists on both sides of the fence. Again, check a few threads back about a very credible reference I noted to Spirit Meadows.

I certainly don’t consider this issue as a litmus test to the Catholic Faith. Anyone can choose and you cannot down play creationism as much as you do. This is not within the spirit of the Church. Some of your arguments are not up to date.

I’m out of here, brother. I got too much work to do. This is interesting debate. I like what people are bringing to the table. But, I hear a lot of talk, I would like to see some Church references or facts laid. Haven’t seen any from you STOUT evolutionists…? Merry Christmas if I don’t come up on the net, again.

 

[juliamajor]

But if you think everything in Genesis was just stories and not real events, how do you know the story of Abraham was real and not just stories to tell a point. That’s the problem,. To me, to start to say some parts of the Bible were just stories puts everything in the bible in question because how do you differenciate which parts are “just stories” and which parts are facts. It makes no sense to me. And like the other poster said, since Hebrews 11 mentions the faith of Noah during the flood right along with the faith of other people in the Bible, it puts the other things mentioned in Hebrews in jopardy if you say the flood did not really happen. And like someone said if the flood was not worldwide all God had to do was tell Noah to move! LOL! It doesn’t make sense to start saying certain things in the Bible were just stories because then you have to question everything else. What about the virgin birth was that “just a story?” After all science says it’s impossible for a virgin to have a baby (without today’s technology) just like science says they think the flood was not worldwide so why believe the Bible over science in some instances then turn around and believe science over the Bible in other instances? It makes no sense. I can understand the church leaving it open as to whether it was worldwide or not, but for someone to say flat out it was not worldwide and did not happen at all, that’s dangerous thinking.

Then I’m a dangerous thinker! Firstly I didn’t say everything in Genesis was a story- though story is not an evil word.I mean that’s like saying non-fiction is good and fiction is bad. Jonah is a didactic story as Esther is a story. Can’t"stories" be inspired? are only historical based inspiration only ones truly inspired? Psalm-poetry - praise and emotion- certainly not hard body facts but its truer than a lot of historical writings- that’s not to say that history is contained in the bible. We know they are. But not every book in the bible was meant as Factual- bible is a series of books of ALL kinds of Different Genres.- and just like genres of writings they are not meant to be all read in the same manner. Trouble with literalists is that they read all the books of the bible in the same manner.You can’t do that it will skew they way that book it to be taken

 

[pnewton]

I have no idea how you believe that Genesis is literally true and then say you don’t believe in YEC. But believe whatever you wish. I know that nothing on this earth will ever convince those that wish to adher to literalism in this manner. It’s not about logic its about psychology.

I will clarify. Only one chapter out of fifty really effects the dating of the earth. That is why I say Genesis is true. In reference to the young earth theory, I see nothing in Genesis, even a literal interpretation that mandates what we now call a “day” being equal to twenty-four hours. Obviously I am not a KJV worshipper. In reference to the geneologies, the Jewish people did not see the necessity of including every person in a the chain to say they “begat” them. They even called themselves sons of Abraham. So a strict YEC is not necessary, if one understands that the timeline is not given, at least in the sense of modern thought. I do not see this as taking away from the literal sense. Adam lived and sinned. He was tossed out of paradise. Cain killed Abel. etc.

As far as my beliefs as to the age of the earth, I view that as a matter of science. God could have done it all in an instant, or 144 hours. I would not know why he would be in such a hurry though, as football season had not yet even been invented.

 

[juliamajor]

Sorry if this reply is disconnected-Hit my head on the ice when i fell- concussion I’m supposed to be resting-so nowi will-Say a couple of payers out there for healing-Probably won’t be on here again for awhile have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!! I;m going to bed now