Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To Ed,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is truly a great gift. I agree with you that everyone should have a copy and use it regularly as a reference.

Keep the faith!
 
If you read up on why this happened, you will see that the Church loves the truth. It investigated, and found little evidence that this man existed. You should also read up on how the Church reviews the lives and miracles attributed to those being considered for sainthood. I did say miracles, which still do happen.

You say: “If you read up on why this happened, you will see the church loves the truth”…why did it take 19 centuries and billions of wasted so called prayers to this fictional character that all previous Popes/cleric and billions of catholics believed in all their lives. Went to their graves believing in this…all previous Popes for 5 centuries preached that the sun rotated around the earth.

The church loves the truth. The sex abuse scandal which is a world wide epidemic in the church. Cardinals/Bishops/priests lied and covered up this huge scandal and millions of catholics don’t even want to talk about it. The truth came out in the church with this issue only because they GOT CAUGHT! This had gone on for centuries…

John Walsh from americas most wanted last year on Larry King indicated the FBI informed him that over 10,000 catholic priests in the past 20 years have molested children. There has to be thousands of so called good catholic priests who also knew of this and DID NOTHING! Shame on all of them…THATS THE TRUTH!

and God bless you!

God bless,
Ed
 
To Ed,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is truly a great gift. I agree with you that everyone should have a copy and use it regularly as a reference.

I would believe that most catholics have never read it. I believe most catholics have never read the bible cover to cover. Most have gone throught the first book of Genesis but beyond that point bits and pieces, but they all like to quote from it

Keep the faith to you also.

Keep the faith!
 
Impalass, you imply St. Christopher lived during the time of Jesus. He died around 250 A.D., that is Anno Domini. Jesus appeared to St. Christopher during his life to reward him, in a way, for his faith.
Rick: I implied that the catholic church indicated Christopher lived during the time of Jesus. The church taught that Christopher carried baby Jesus across a river…There was a Christopher a couple hundred years later as you say but he is not the character the church had us believe in… The church has also just acknowledged that. The church has quietly dropped christopher and hundreds of other saints that we all prayed to for centuries because I am sure many people questioned the church about these people that don’t show up anywhere in the history of the catholic church. as to what the church taught.
 
Petrus (drpjmhess) you have a message over on this topic for you to address:)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2883348#post2883348
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2883348#post2883348
wildleafblower;2883259:
I’m surprised drpmjhess (Petrus) hasn’t responded to this topic. I noticed Petrus (drpmjhess) wrote in msg. 46, “…I have a book coming out in May 2008 on Catholicism and science that deals in part with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin…” in the topic Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2771605#post2771605
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2771605#post2771605
(Interesting read msg. 46 – 73. Humm)

I’d be curious to learn what drpmjhess (Petrus) plans on writing about Teilhard de Chardin. All I can say is that it is unfortunate that Teilhard de Chardin has a swam of New Age and Intelligent Design folks as fans promoting pantheism and panentheism.

I’m not an advocate for pantheism or panetheism. Why? Because it destroys science and dissolves the mystery of God and the real historical truth about Jesus. I love Jesus and the Holy Spirit. ❤️

PETRUS (drpmjhess), why aren’t you participating on this thread since you have claimed you are a Catholic Theologian?
bumping this for drpjmhess (Petrus)🙂
 
Side 1: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this conclusion; traditional Catholic dogma on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis and the Fall is true, but this dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. Much of Genesis 1-11 is probably “myth” but in a literary sense not a pejorative sense. My position, Orogeny, SteveAndersen, Zian, and I assume many others in here. 👍
Phil P
I would say that’s accurate.:yup:
 
<< In short, please, how would you describe the two sides? >>

My opinion, there are four sides amongst Catholics in here, and some Protestants or Orthodox also can put themselves in one of these categories (substitute “traditional Catholic dogma” for “the Bible” where appropriate for fundamentalists or evangelicals).

Side 1: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this conclusion; traditional Catholic dogma on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis and the Fall is true, but this dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. Much of Genesis 1-11 is probably “myth” but in a literary sense not a pejorative sense. My position, Orogeny, SteveAndersen, Zian, and I assume many others in here. 👍

Side 2: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this; Genesis 1-11 is myth; traditional Catholic dogma must be re-interpreted (especially on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis, etc) along the lines that modern Catholic theologians (like John Haught) are doing so. In this category are GottleOfGeer, SpiritMeadow, drpmjhess, perhaps others. Correct me if I have you wrong! 😃

Phil P
Phil, I’m not clear on how #1 and #2 differ. Can you please clarify this for me?

Petrus
 
drpm << Phil, I’m not clear on how #1 and #2 differ. Can you please clarify this for me? >>

Perhaps #1 and #2 can be included into one:

Side 1&2: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this conclusion; traditional Catholic dogma on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis and the Fall is true, but this dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution, and some Catholics think should be re-interpreted in light of modern science. Much of Genesis 1-11 is probably “myth” or “symbolical” or “figurative.”

The only difference between my original #1 and #2 is some think traditional Catholic dogma should be re-interpreted to the point where it doesn’t resemble traditional Catholic dogma. I would submit that is what John Haught has done in his book Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution when he says there was no historical Adam/Eve, and original sin is “our general state of present human estrangement from God, from each other, and from the world. We have not inherited anything from a literal Adam/Eve, but rather have inherited environments, cultures, habits, and a whole history filled with evil and opposition to life.” (paraphrase but this is accurate)

The definition we find in the Catechism and a source like Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is:
  1. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De Fide)

Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent communis)

Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De Fide)

In the state of Original Sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De Fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatis, Denz 788ff)

Other De Fide teachings are the following:

– God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
– The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
– The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
– God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
– God has created a good world. (De Fide)
– The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
– God alone created the world. (De Fide)
– God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
– God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
– The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
– Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
– Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
– Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
– The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
– Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
– Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
– Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

That’s what I affirm, but I admit all of this is difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary view without radical re-interpretation. According to Haught, there were no “our first parents.”

Phil P
 
That’s what I affirm, but I admit all of this is difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary view without radical re-interpretation. According to Haught, there were no “our first parents.” Phil P
Thanks, Phil – I think I can see where you’re coming from. Personally I don’t have a problem with reinterpreting the expression of Catholic dogma to suit the circumstances of changing times. If the Church had not been willing to reinterpret dogma over the centuries, we would still be reading the Nicene Creed through the lenses of a primitive, geocentric, alchemical, witch-burning, demon-fearing, young earth perspective.

Jack Haught and I share an optimistic view of the God-creation-humanity relationship. And his treatment of the theodicy issue is I believe among the best contemporary accounts. From a Lutheran perspective Ted Peter’s book God:L the World’s Future is equally provocative.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus
 
Petrus << If the Church had not been willing to reinterpret dogma over the centuries, we would still be reading the Nicene Creed through the lenses of a primitive, geocentric, alchemical, witch-burning, demon-fearing, young earth perspective. >>

I agree with you there, but I was only talking about Adam/Eve, original sin, and the Fall, not geocentrism, alchemy, witches and demons. Although I accept demonic possession, however rare. The problem I see is a slippery slope – re-defining the faith the way Haught does is like John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong who say they certainly “believe in the resurrection” yet they mean Jesus’ body is still rotting in the tomb or was “eaten by wild dogs.” That is NOT a resurrection in my opinion.

Of course an ascended Jesus presents problems too – traveling even at the speed of light in 2000 years Jesus would not yet have “accellerated” out of the Milky Way Galaxy. 😛 :confused: Sorry I heard that once from Joseph Cambell, the expert on “myth” or was that Carl Sagan’s objection to heaven? :heaven:

Phil P
 
The problem I see is a slippery slope – re-defining the faith the way Haught does is like John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong who say they certainly “believe in the resurrection” yet they mean Jesus’ body is still rotting in the tomb or was “eaten by wild dogs.” That is NOT a resurrection in my opinion.Phil P
Phil, I quite agree with you that interpreting dogma is never an easy task. But the god-of-the-gaps approach of taking refuge in areas not yet exploited by science is a recipe for disaster. Science will continue its inexorable march of discovery and explanation, and if we Cathoics (and other Christians and theists) put our eggs in the basket that science has not yet explained everything, we are in deep doo doo.

Petrus
 
I am an ex-muslim who has tried to follow Christ faithfully for over 25 years now. As one exploring greater understanding of Orthodox and Catholic interpretation of Holy Scriptures inline with early pastors and bishops right interpretations of God’s Word, I wonder how can a pope, not speaking ex-cathedra override the testimony of all saints’ written testimony provided to us all?

On answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp , I read excerpts from many Church Fathers who have always had to face the very long earth creation theories of ancient philosophers, but they always stood their ground for <10,000 year earth as the honest Christian perspective.

As one with a minor degree in physics and computer engineering, I am deeply moved by Dr. Hovind’s strong scientific understanding of creation that lines up with what the Church has always taught from the beginning. His website: www.drdino.com has a lot more info., but I watched the following vide where he simultaneously debated 3 sceince professors on a secular campus. I wonder how many others have not known about such wonderful presentation by teh faithful as found in this free 2 hour debates found online for free on video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4266486726170831508&q=creation+science&total=43&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 ) and if bishops and theologians of the Chruch in Rome are not watching these or simply being influenced by our modern culture?
When a couple of popes declare a teaching but they are not speaking ex-cathedra and their teaching contradicts almost all early Church Fathers, how does the Catholic respond faithfully to Holy Tradition and Scripture that overrides any modern re-interpretations of the basic facts of our faith? For example, as there was one adam and eve, there is a new Eve, and there is a new Adam. Creation was under a blissful state with no death until sin entered the world, so how could a “modern” remake of an old “theory” override the faithful testimony of all saints in Christ’s presence and amongst us now?

humbly,
 
Love << I am deeply moved by Dr. Hovind’s strong scientific understanding of creation that lines up with what the Church has always taught from the beginning. His website: www.drdino.com has a lot more info >>

Yes, I am deeply moved also, to the bathroom where I need to vomit. :eek:

Kent Hovind??? To quote John McEnroe, “you cannot be serious.” 😃

Everything you didn’t want to know about Dr. Dino and were afraid to contemplate

So did he try his "you came from a rock" argument with those professors?

A little more on Kent Hovind from TalkOrigins

You’ll find the modern Popes want nothing to do with Kent Hovind’s kind of creationism. The only good thing I can say about Dr. Dino is that he is indeed entertaining. Thanks for the link to the video. 👍

BTW, if I were to pick three professors I would not pick those guys. How about Ken Miller (Catholic biologist), Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), and Lawrence Krauss (agnostic physicist) instead? 👍 👍

Phil P
 
Rick: I implied that the catholic church indicated Christopher lived during the time of Jesus. The church taught that Christopher carried baby Jesus across a river…There was a Christopher a couple hundred years later as you say but he is not the character the church had us believe in… The church has also just acknowledged that. The church has quietly dropped christopher and hundreds of other saints that we all prayed to for centuries because I am sure many people questioned the church about these people that don’t show up anywhere in the history of the catholic church. as to what the church taught.
Impalass - sorry but I have never heard of this Saint Christopher that lived during the life of Jesus and that has been “removed” from his office. I am aware of the later Christopher - 250AD. Perhaps I was dozing in religious education class.

I did notice the church dropped many saints that did not have sufficient records to prove their case. It is unfortunate records were not well kept in earlier times. Some of these “removed” saints may be quite legitimate. But we will not know till we are allowed into eternal paradise.

Do you feel misled by the Church?
 
As one with a minor degree in physics and computer engineering, I am deeply moved by Dr. Hovind’s strong scientific understanding of creation that lines up with what the Church has always taught from the beginning.,
Do you mean convicted felon Kent Hovind? He has no scientific understanding. His “Ph.D” was from a degree mill.

Petrus
 
Petrus << If the Church had not been willing to reinterpret dogma over the centuries, we would still be reading the Nicene Creed through the lenses of a primitive, geocentric, alchemical, witch-burning, demon-fearing, young earth perspective. >>

I agree with you there, but I was only talking about Adam/Eve, original sin, and the Fall, not geocentrism, alchemy, witches and demons. Although I accept demonic possession, however rare. The problem I see is a slippery slope – re-defining the faith the way Haught does is like John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong who say they certainly “believe in the resurrection” yet they mean Jesus’ body is still rotting in the tomb or was “eaten by wild dogs.” That is NOT a resurrection in my opinion.

Of course an ascended Jesus presents problems too – traveling even at the speed of light in 2000 years Jesus would not yet have “accellerated” out of the Milky Way Galaxy. 😛 :confused: Sorry I heard that once from Joseph Cambell, the expert on “myth” or was that Carl Sagan’s objection to heaven? :heaven:

Phil P
There is no problem if a literal Jesus Christ is believed in who is alive at this moment and who will come again to judge the living and the dead.

If anyone is trying to explain their way out of established Church teaching, then they are really in trouble. The mind of man is not superior to the mind of God. Materialism takes us away from God and holds human knowledge above spiritual knowledge. This is error.

God bless,
Ed
 
There’s the magic word “ignorance” again. Go here:

darwincentral.org

Read up on the people who know that science has nothing to say about God. 🙂

God bless,
Ed
A good read is: **
Orthodoxy and Creationism

**by Fr. Deacon Andrey Kuraev

Although it is an Orthodox article it is well written and explains Creation and Evolution as complementaries and not opposites.

There is a good article on St. Augustine as well here

It can be downloaded from Google in its entirety.
 
Nope. Just more “how can we get away from God and His Word as fast as possible”?

I’m not interested in hearing more from the “Anti-God Explanation Industry.” Reminds me of a “science” program I was watching that attempted to explain the plagues of Egypt that were brought about by God. A lot of people are rushing out hilarious attempts to explain away miracles, Jesus, His divinity, the list goes on. There’s a really big push going on right now to promote atheism. I don’t want any.

You should really read up at darwincentral. You’ll learn new words like “cretard,” “cretardation,” and all about those evil fundies.

God bless,
Ed
 
Nope. Just more “how can we get away from God and His Word as fast as possible”?

I’m not interested in hearing more from the “Anti-God Explanation Industry.” Reminds me of a “science” program I was watching that attempted to explain the plagues of Egypt that were brought about by God. A lot of people are rushing out hilarious attempts to explain away miracles, Jesus, His divinity, the list goes on. There’s a really big push going on right now to promote atheism. I don’t want any.

You should really read up at darwincentral. You’ll learn new words like “cretard,” “cretardation,” and all about those evil fundies.

**Sadly Ed you continue. But at least you make it clear that learning is not your goal. You maintain this insanity because you choose to and now you have fallen to the depths of calling everyone who disagrees anti-God. Such a blatant lie is unforgiveable. you owe everyone an apology. There is a point where decent discussion goes to far. You cannot dismiss us so cavalierly. You deny the Church herself in your mad attempt to have it your way. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top