How does the church explain dinosaurs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dustdev14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t read much of him. Strikes me as a man that turned to Orthodoxy in order to express the counter culture of the 60s.

I’m critical of the tone of most Orthodox presence on the English speaking part of the internet. I think many are ex-protestants that are excited to have another, more credible angle with which to attack the Roman Catholic Church, sadly.
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
Actually, the Toll Houses are not uncommon in Orthodox thought.
Click to expand...
I’ve read good rebuttals about them from Orthodox sources too though.

It seems a lot of “tollhouse” ideas stem from mistranslations and misquotes of things originally written in Greek or Russian.

And I read a good rebuttal which drew great parallels between ancient gnostic beliefs and the modern theological opinion of aerial tollhouses, and they reached conclusion the tollhouse opinion is essentially neo-Gnostic… And I concur with that assessment.

Lastly, I’ve never seen any Eastern Catholic or Oriental Orthodox espousing the tollhouse idea… It seems to be a uniquely Byzantine Orthodox idea.
 
Last edited:
In defense of Orthodox though, the tollhouses are a theological opinion, not an official Church doctrine or dogma.

Although I have also seen Orthodox tollhouse proponents who say the tollhouse idea is in fact infallible Church doctrine.

It certainly is a problem that within Orthodoxy there is no Holy See, no Roman Curia, and no Pope and nothing equivalent to those things… So there is no teaching authority to appeal to in order to settle these issues.

Basically the local Bishop is the highest authority, and individual Bishops often disagree with or flat out contradict each other.

Synods don’t seem to be much use within Orthodoxy either, at least as far as settling these doctrinal issues.
 
Last edited:
dustdev14 said:
Hello!
It sounds silly just typing this, talking about dinosaurs seems like such a silly thing to do, but this is a serious question. How does the church explain dinosaurs, or really ANYTHING that we know existed before humans did? How does creationism hold up to everything we know today? I’ve heard that many people swear to the Liviathan in the book of Job being a Dinosaur, and I’m willing to give them that. But then we have a lot of things such as Human’s tailbone, which we expect to be from monkeys. We know of mulitiple human-like species, such as homo erectus and Neanderthals. How is any of this explained?
Click to expand...
 
setarcos said:
That seems pretty late in the game?
Click to expand...
Regarding biological evolution he said.

Considering the theory was only about 100 years old in the 1950s, and it wasn’t until about the 1930’s that scientists in general all accepted it, that certainly doesn’t seem “late in the game” to me…
 
Aside from splitting hairs to point out what others here have said about humans not evolving from monkeys…I’d say since the bible indicates that higher life forms predated Adams creation whose source comes from the dirt, this is a pretty good indication that biblically, even analogically speaking, Adam was formed unnaturally…a.k.a. "supernaturally and not by the known proposed processes natural evolution.
 
Or perhaps a little scripture…

Job

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

41
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

How’a’bout dragons?

Isaiah 27:1 — “… and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.”
Jeremiah 51:34 — “… he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates …”
Psalms 74:13 — “… thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.”
Job 41:19-21 — “Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.”
Isaiah 30:6 — “… the viper and fiery flying serpent …”

And dragons are referenced many more times…and if I lived thousands of years ago before the term dinosaur was coined I probably would have said it was a dragon too…
Or…

Isaiah 27 King James Version (KJV)

27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Psalm 104
25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
 
Catholics don’t have teachings under dispute too?

Come, now. That’s just silly.
 
You’re right that the RCC historically loves domgatization.

Boxed itself into a few corners because of it. Galileo is the most famous example, but not the only one by a long shot.
 
Axsenex said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Totally 90s thing
Click to expand...
Because of this post, I started watching the series last night on Hulu!!!

The baby cracks me up… “I’m the baby, gotta love me.” or when he says to his dad, “ok, I’m going to bit you now”

LOL
 
Last edited:
This only goes to show that you know nothing about history.

Let me guess, you tihnk the Church rejected Galileo’s theories, and persecuted him because of them?

Do you want to know what actually happened? If so, continue reading.

When Galileo came up with his theory, he was asked to show supporting evidence. He could not. His views were rejected by pretty much every learned man of the time, and yet despite this, he continued to put them forward as truth, despite there being glaring holes in his work.

What’s hilarious about all this Galileo nonsense is that Kepler had the idea first, and he sought refuge among the Jesusit’s in his area to escape the Protestants who persecuted him for his work.

The problems with Galileo had nothing to do with his scientific concept, and everything to do with the way he presented it, and put it forward as truth without corroboration. The fact that he was right doesn’t change the fact that he went about proving it in pretty much the worst possible way. Were he alive today and trying to put this forward, he would be laughed out of publication due to his incomplete methods.

Eventually, Galileo started trying to use his views to claim that the Church was wrong, and wound up insulting even his more ardent supporters within the Church. Ultimately, he wasn’t punished for his science, but was punished for pissing off people in power by being a jerk. Sure, that’s still wrong, but it is not evidence of some anti-science bend in the Church.

Also, his punishment was house arrest… that’s it… and with a servant to boot.

For more information: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy
 
Last edited:
Galileo was found guilty of being “vehemently suspect of heresy” and on that basis imprisoned to his home until he died.

-A gentle punishment he obtained, no doubt, due to his celebrity (you and I would have been executed by state authorities).
For those interested in reading about the Galileo Affair in a way that’s a bit more objective, go nuts;

 
Last edited:
Once again, it was not specifically his support of heliocentrism that got him in trouble, it was his application of it.

The problem was not the science, it was the person. Had the theory been the problem, Kepler would have suffered the same fate as Galileo, as he also put forward a heliocentric theory.

You can keep believing it was about the science if you want, but you are wrong.
 
I don’t mean to push my perspective onto others…just seems to me that over a century has passed since the basic principles of Evolutionary theory had been proposed and the Church had remained pretty neutral, officially, as to commenting on such things even though it had asserted its weight in other scientific matters long before these things, then for some reason deemed it necessary to weigh in on it. Why? These things seem to be generally restricted to the internal affairs of nature in creation with no baring on the spiritual wellbeing of the flock the Church should be concerned with. Why after more than a century did the church deem it necessary to unnecessarily weigh in on the science of evolution…perhaps the church deemed evolution a possible threat to its continued existence as a viable authority on creation and wanted to preempt its competitions alternative proposals of non theistic origins of life via the ever increasing knowledge of science in order to hedge its bets and inculcate these views into the Catholic system of beliefs in order to explain them through the lens of Catholicism.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Once again, it was not specifically his support of heliocentrism that got him in trouble, it was his application of it.
Click to expand...
You need to read Galileo’s Abjuration:
I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God’s help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach.

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move. (emphases added)

Source: The Crime of Galileo
Click to expand...
It wasn’t about science, it was about an incorrect interpretation of “Holy Writ” as held by the Holy Office of the Catholic Church at that time.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top