Hello is anyone there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter freesoulhope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

freesoulhope

Guest
is there anybody out there that will anwser my questions? god Bless
 
Welcome to CA freesoulhelp!

Post away - that’s why everyone is here - to learn from each other. However, you will get the best responses if you go to a specific topic section and ask one question per post. More than one just ruffles feathers.

Have a blessed day - what is left of it since you are in London (I live in Europe so I know it is late where you are 🙂 )
 
Yep - but there are many different questions to answer in apologetics 🙂
 
What is your personal opinion on evolution, and how far can we go with such a concept with out totally deforming what has been written in the bible?
 
hi welcome to the forums, here is a fast track to getting answers you want, start on the CA homepage check out tracts and search in library on your topic. if you post on AAA forum or ask here, most likely we will answer by posting one of these links, so you can save time by doing your homework first, then come back here for discussion. lots of recent threads on evolution, also do a search on the forums to see what has been discussed. check out the stickies on each forum with rules and suggestions, this will make your time here more useful and enjoyable.
 
It is ok to believe in an evolutionary process by which creatures “evolve” over time but it is important to understand that if such a process exists, God is the guiding hand by which it moves and that all of creation was created from “nothingness” into “somethingness” by God. In reference to humanity, it is not as important “how” humanity came to be in present form, genetically speaking, but that we all come from ONE set of parents, Adam and Eve, and that we are distinguished from all of God’s creation by being endowed with both physical body and immortal soul at the bidding of our all loving God. We must also believe in the possibility of miracles whereby God makes exceptions to the “laws of nature,” for example Christ’s life, death, and resurrection and, in certain terms, the devine manner of the establishment of humanity. Regarding the particulars of the evolution controversies, the Catholic Church is not concerned with whether we are evolved from “apes” or not as that has no binding on us being either “created in the image and likeness of God” and the existence of God’s preference for us and being His chosen creation. If Adam and Eve have genetic ties to former “ape-like” creatures this does not compromise the Bible’s teaching if viewed in light of God’s plan for humanity which is not simply “genetic” but of divine nature. We must not reject science as God has given us the gift of intellect but it must be used responsibly in light of God’s revelation and the teachings of the Magesterium of the Church. Truth cannot contradict truth and therefore we can have no fear of either the physical sciences nor theology, for example. We need to strike a balance so as not to completely throw out either aspect of knowledge. We cannot deny the fact that we share MUCH of our genetic makeup with other creatures but must also recognize our unique place in God’s eternal plan.
 
Evolution, there are two scientific beleifs,

Evolution by the big bang theory and evoultion that us humans evolved from apes. I was in your “rainbow” question and gave you the name of a man who will answer this very question in such a proving way, wow!! The bible is correct. We were CREATED, not Evolved.

I will leave you w/ these two thoughts just as an example:

in the big bang theory, basicly nothing evolved from nothing and we evolved from a rock!! I’d like to think I have better genes and a lot smarter than some substance such as a rock!!

Apes:
if we evolved from apes, why haven’t all the other apes evolved?? there is actually a scientific answer to this one, but it is false.

Satan has always tried to discredit God!! Plain and simple!! so evolution is just another one of those things that will make you question your bible!

Get that scientist cd’s, download them free… Yep he publishes everything free. Dr. Kent Houind(Havind) I can’t read my own writing really off this cd. LOL
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
What is your personal opinion on evolution, and how far can we go with such a concept with out totally deforming what has been written in the bible?
Click to expand...
Have a browse at

catholiceducation.org/directory/Core_Subjects/Science/
 
Allow me to take a shot at this (and if I am wrong on any point I humbly request that someone with more knowledge correct my errors).

The Catholic Church gives no definitive teaching on Creation outside of a few simple tenents. We must acknowledge that God exists, created everything from nothing with a specific plan that came to fruition through his own power, created two original human beings (Adam and Eve), and those two original humans succumbed to temptation bringing sin into the world.

As long as you don’t deny these realities, I believe the Church allows you to hold whatever theories or opinions on creation that you choose.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
Allow me to take a shot at this (and if I am wrong on any point I humbly request that someone with more knowledge correct my errors).

The Catholic Church gives no definitive teaching on Creation outside of a few simple tenents. We must acknowledge that God exists, created everything from nothing with a specific plan that came to fruition through his own power, created two original human beings (Adam and Eve), and those two original humans succumbed to temptation bringing sin into the world.

As long as you don’t deny these realities, I believe the Church allows you to hold whatever theories or opinions on creation that you choose.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
As long as you don’t deny these realities, I believe the Church allows you to hold whatever theories or opinions on creation that you choose.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s correct. A number of other threads have pointed out numerous discrepancies between evolutionary theory/scientific “fact” and Scriptural teaching.

The problem is that Catholics should not predicate their faith and theories as to the origins of man on the basis of science and then keep backing down and revising as science unearths more.

I can tell you with certainty that, 200-300 years ago, Catholics and 6 day young earth creationists were far more one and the same than they are today.

A number of the inconsistencies:
  1. The 6,000-10,000 year genealogy laid down in Genesis from Adam to Christ (and then + 2006 until today) versus the ensoulment theory which places man back millions of years. Either Moses deliberately left gaps of hundreds of thousands of years in those genealogies (unlikely) or something else has been unexplained.
  2. The clear Biblical language about God having created man “from the beginning” versus science’s assertion that man appeared towards the very end of the 4.5 billion year old Earth.
  3. Science’s dismissal of a global flood versus Noah’s ark and the numerous passages that quite clearly dismiss the “local flood” theory and confirm that this flood destroyed “every living thing on the face of the Earth.”
  4. Scriptural references to man being formed from the dust of the ground and woman coming from man’s rib versus man being formed from ape-like hominids. The latter does not seem consistent with God’s having set man apart from all the other creatures, nor is there any evidence whatsoever in Genesis (or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the Bible) for the rather ENORMOUS leap one takes in asserting that God created apes, waited a few thousand years and let mutations run their course, then ensouled these modified apes and called them Adam and Eve.
I’d love to see the Church give teachings about those, because invariably, unbelievers and those married to science are forever bringing these things up as “inconsistencies” or using them to dismiss the inerrancy of Scripture.

These are mutually exclusive claims. It is not right for Catholics to form private opinions about the origins of the universe by retracting former beliefs to make way for science. Science is second to faith. I hope the Church will issue something about these matters soon enough so that we might stop the 500 post evolution threads that daily waste the site’s bandwidth.
 
Mike O:
I’m not sure that’s correct. A number of other threads have pointed out numerous discrepancies between evolutionary theory/scientific “fact” and Scriptural teaching.

The problem is that Catholics should not predicate their faith and theories as to the origins of man on the basis of science and then keep backing down and revising as science unearths more.

I can tell you with certainty that, 200-300 years ago, Catholics and 6 day young earth creationists were far more one and the same than they are today.

A number of the inconsistencies:
  1. The 6,000-10,000 year genealogy laid down in Genesis from Adam to Christ (and then + 2006 until today) versus the ensoulment theory which places man back millions of years. Either Moses deliberately left gaps of hundreds of thousands of years in those genealogies (unlikely) or something else has been unexplained.
  2. The clear Biblical language about God having created man “from the beginning” versus science’s assertion that man appeared towards the very end of the 4.5 billion year old Earth.
  3. Science’s dismissal of a global flood versus Noah’s ark and the numerous passages that quite clearly dismiss the “local flood” theory and confirm that this flood destroyed “every living thing on the face of the Earth.”
  4. Scriptural references to man being formed from the dust of the ground and woman coming from man’s rib versus man being formed from ape-like hominids. The latter does not seem consistent with God’s having set man apart from all the other creatures, nor is there any evidence whatsoever in Genesis (or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the Bible) for the rather ENORMOUS leap one takes in asserting that God created apes, waited a few thousand years and let mutations run their course, then ensouled these modified apes and called them Adam and Eve.
I’d love to see the Church give teachings about those, because invariably, unbelievers and those married to science are forever bringing these things up as “inconsistencies” or using them to dismiss the inerrancy of Scripture.

These are mutually exclusive claims. It is not right for Catholics to form private opinions about the origins of the universe by retracting former beliefs to make way for science. Science is second to faith. I hope the Church will issue something about these matters soon enough so that we might stop the 500 post evolution threads that daily waste the site’s bandwidth.
Click to expand...
^This entire post is forgetting that we are not capable of interpreting scripture in a more capable way as individuals than the Magesterium. If you think your interpretation of scripture is more accurate than the Magesterium’s you are treading in Protestant or SSPX waters. Saying things so conclusively, what would happen to your faith if the Church stated explicitely the opposite of you? In fact, the Church practically has if you look at BXVI’s writings on this whole debate. Nowhere does he give credence to the young earth, direct geneology theories and although not infallible, we have to respect his views and his office.
 
CollegeCatholic said:
^This entire post is forgetting that we are not capable of interpreting scripture in a more capable way as individuals than the Magesterium.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I said, hence, my call for the Church to define these matters and not Catholics on this board making threads touting hominid-ensoulment and other theories.
If you think your interpretation of scripture is more accurate than the Magesterium’s you are treading in Protestant or SSPX waters.
Click to expand...
Please be ever so careful when you erect straw men.

You are treading in illiterate waters. Go back and read what I actually wrote, rather than constructing statements I never made.
Saying things so conclusively, what would happen to your faith if the Church stated explicitely the opposite of you? In fact, the Church practically has if you look at BXVI’s writings on this whole debate. Nowhere does he give credence to the young earth, direct geneology theories and although not infallible, we have to respect his views and his office.
Click to expand...
None of what you said here makes an ounce of sense.

I repeat my injunction to not attack someone based on your own mistaken assumptions.
 
Mike O:
That’s exactly what I said, hence, my call for the Church to define these matters and not Catholics on this board making threads touting hominid-ensoulment and other theories.

Please be ever so careful when you erect straw men.

You are treading in illiterate waters. Go back and read what I actually wrote, rather than constructing statements I never made.

None of what you said here makes an ounce of sense.

I repeat my injunction to not attack someone based on your own mistaken assumptions.
Click to expand...
No assumptions here.

Your absolute statements:
These are mutually exclusive claims. It is not right for Catholics to form private opinions about the origins of the universe by retracting former beliefs to make way for science. Science is second to faith. I hope the Church will issue something about these matters soon enough so that we might stop the 500 post evolution threads that daily waste the site’s bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Your entire view is based on YOUR literal interpretation of the Bible. As such, these absolute statements reveal that your view is the only possible one, even though the Church has not defined it as such.
 
Let’s please not turn this into an “evolution vs creationism” debate. The question, as asked, was how far we are allowed to go without degrading the bible. The Church allows alot of room for differing personal opinion on this subject, and if anything in my original post was incorrect then please let me, and the rest of the thread know.

Keep in mind MikeO, that science and truth can not be in oppostion to one another, and the Church holds that good science will ultimately lead us deeper into the truth, which of course can NOT in any way be in opposition to the Scripture. But right now the science on this subject is incomplete and inconclusive, so I believe the Church is withholding alot of official teaching on this because they’re waiting to see where the science takes us. Until then, if you choose to believe in a 6 day accounting for the creation of the universe (which I certainly believe to be possible; after all our God is all powerful and certainly capable of such) then you can do so and still be in line with Church teaching. And conversely, if I choose to think that Genesis ch1-2 contain much more symbolic language, and that there are other variables not explained explicitly within the Scripture, then I am free to hold that opinion without being in opposition to the Church.
 
When we start running into REAL problems is when, in our effort to explain creation, we DENY certain elements of Truth. We cannot hold any opinion that denies that God exists, that God actively created everything from nothing (in accord with a perfect design of his intellect), and that this creation ultimately (and purposefully) resulted in two original human beings, who of course were “separated” from the rest of creation by their intellect, and their soul (which of course was also not by chance, but given to them, on purpose, from God).

You are right Mike O, that we should not predicate our faith on scientific theory; but please remember (as I stated before), that we should likewise not immaturely disregard scientific discovery on the basis of “faith” because, once again science and Truth CAN NOT be in contradiction to one another. My original point was not that evolution was “right”, simply that there is alot of room for personal opinion on how the universe came to be in a technical and mechanical sense. We know God created it, just not EXACTLY how he went about it, and you can say he did it in 6 24 hour periods the same as I can say maybe those “days” are symbolic without being in opposition with one another, the Church, and ultimately the Truth.
 
CCC 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. **Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.**204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206
 
40.png
CollegeCatholic:
Your entire view is based on YOUR literal interpretation of the Bible. As such, these absolute statements reveal that your view is the only possible one, even though the Church has not defined it as such.
Click to expand...
Please stop floating this nonsense around.

You have repeatedly butchered my statements to suit your own attacks.

I said that a Catholic forming private opinions about the origin of the universe sans any declaration by his Church is not appropriate.

That is true. I do not claim the opinion, nor is there a patent. It existed long before I was born. The opposite of what I said–forming those private opinions/interpretations–is called Protestantism.

It is also true that there is a dangerous tendency among some Catholics to back down from earlier beliefs and let their private interpretations be dictated by the advances of science. Look no further than the countless evolution threads that are posted all the time on here with Catholics answering the questions, not based on Church teaching, but based on their private opinion.

In light of my clear lack of profession of the “literal” truth of the Bible, it is clear that you are once again fishing for statements that were never made.

This is called erecting a straw man. It is about as effective a technique as would my arguing against your claim that Mohammed, the Muslim prophet, is a large purple dragon living in a cave in the Amazonian rainforest. You never made that claim, and hypothetically I would argue against it. I say A, you say that I said B and argue C. Not a charitable thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top