T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Thank you catholic1seeks
If Adam and Eve were real people but existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, then what about Noah?
- Status
F
firstmode
Guest
This applies to the Orthodox church then, as they do not believe in Original Sin.
BTW, I am a creationist.
O
oriel16
Guest
Sure the Church is being almost anti-scientific in its position on Copernicus by allowing that great astronomer’s work to be distorted and temporarily destroyed.I had over 3 centuries of empirical rubbish to cut through to get to the easy to understand thinking of Copernicus which was supported by Galileo.It is now so easy to understand with modern imaging that only a complete fool could fail to understand the basic outlines of what was done -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
"In the Ptolemaic hypotheses there are the diseases, and the
Copernican their cure. . . . With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign to
the celestial bodies contrary movements, and make everything move from
east to west and at the same time from west to east, whereas with
Copernicus all celestial revolutions are in one direction, from west
to east. And what are we to say of the apparent movement of a planet,
so uneven that it not only goes fast at one time and slow at another,
but sometimes stops entirely and even goes backward a long way after
doing so? To save these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast
epicycles, adapting them one by one to each planet, with certain rules
about incongruous motions – all of which can be done away with by one
very simple motion of the Earth. " GALILEO
If you can’t manage to see the Earth overtaking the outer planets Jupiter and Saturn in the modern imaging above then you would hardly be capable of reasoning through anything else.The present Church refuses to recognise how Copernicus resolved the apparent backward motion of the other planets by giving the Earth an orbital motion,just as Galileo says,leaving daily rotation to explain the day and night cycle.
The same people who distorted evolution also refuse to affirm what Copernicus did and Galileo understood yet have managed to extract an apology from the Church concerning Galileo.There is no precedence for the situation the Church is facing and most of it is its own fault.They should either fire,excommunicate or censure those people in the Church who call themselves astronomers while understanding nothing of the main Western astronomical achievement.
Do you understand the basic insight of Copernicus from the imaging and the supporting text of Galileo ?.Take your time on the matter before replying.
S
SHW
Guest
Heresy is what Paul was speaking of in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”
You preach another gospel and your gospel denies that Adam and Eve were our first parents.
To be Catholic, you must believe that Adam committed the first sin and that this sin alienated all of mankind from God.
SHW
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Personally, I don’t know the history of Galileo and this case. I’m not good at history; it’s not my favorite. I do like theology and apologetics, and what I’m saying is not that the people within the Church have never acted in an anti-scientific (as you say) way, but that the Church in general, since its beginning, has not been “anti-science” and against reason.
E
ebergerud
Guest
There is a small blizzard of messages coming from the Vatican for a generation seperating Church teaching from Young Earth Creationism. Look at CCC 390 and adjacent entries:
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
This still leaves the issue of whether a discrete “primeval event” can remotely pass rational muster. Perhaps so. Recent research on historic DNA does indicate that there was indeed a single point of origin for humanity. (Which implies a single time of origin unless one posits an evolutionary period of “sort of” humans.) Obviously no evidence can possibly affirm any moment of perfect innocence and harmony with God as described in Genesis. Yet Original Sin is one of the central points of Christian doctrine. (On this point almost all denominations agree.) Without the concept it is difficult to understand why humanity needed the redemption provided by Christ on the cross.
Let us not forget, however, that God is viewed as existing beyond time and space. Let us also not forget the crucial qualification made by the Church concerning Christ’s ending of Revelation: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” This allows for wise and humble further thought on a subject of immense importance. Perhaps, for instance, the “Fall” is ongoing - God works through history but is most free of chronology.
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
This still leaves the issue of whether a discrete “primeval event” can remotely pass rational muster. Perhaps so. Recent research on historic DNA does indicate that there was indeed a single point of origin for humanity. (Which implies a single time of origin unless one posits an evolutionary period of “sort of” humans.) Obviously no evidence can possibly affirm any moment of perfect innocence and harmony with God as described in Genesis. Yet Original Sin is one of the central points of Christian doctrine. (On this point almost all denominations agree.) Without the concept it is difficult to understand why humanity needed the redemption provided by Christ on the cross.
Let us not forget, however, that God is viewed as existing beyond time and space. Let us also not forget the crucial qualification made by the Church concerning Christ’s ending of Revelation: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” This allows for wise and humble further thought on a subject of immense importance. Perhaps, for instance, the “Fall” is ongoing - God works through history but is most free of chronology.
All Catholics are creationists by definition.
Our Catechism teaches us this:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
E
ebergerud
Guest
Mr. Huxley is quite right that the Church does not endorse Young Earth Creationism. He is also right that such teaching can do harm to Christianity. Augustine warned early Christians against teaching anything that was clearly untrue less they harm the credibility of the Christian message. I know that organizations like the American Academic Affiliation and related groups which try to reconcile Christianity and Science feel as though they fight a two front war. One front is stuggle against the militantly anti-clerical sector of modern athiesm well represented in many fields of science such as physics. The other is against well meaning fundamentalists who have taken some off-beat ideas from 19th century Evangelical Protestantism and created Christian sects that an educated person must force a person to reject the sect or every field of modern science.
In another area I think Mr. Huxley has spoken too quickly. In 1959 British physicist C.P. Snow published the famous essay “Two Cultures” in which he argued that those in sciences and those in the humanities were losing the common grounds required to converse. In particular, he (rightly in my view) blamed the fans of arts, lit and all things fuzzy, pointing out that almost any scientist knew Shakespeare but that an alarming number of art historians (or students of literature, etc etc) could not define “inertia.” In our day the specialization in education is so extreme that mutual ignorance has drawn much more even. I have never talked with a materialist that had a passing knowledge of theology. I have talked to only a handful of materialists that understood basic concepts of classical philosophy. When someone like Richard Dawkins pontificates about the impact of religion on history, I advise readers to skip to the next chapter for he knows nothing of which he speaks. (Of course there are still a lot of “right brainers” that have trouble with inertia.)
I think Mr. Huxley proves the point. Tussels over the essense of God (things like all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly righteous, existing outside of time and space) have concerned the finest minds in both theology and many in philosophy for centuries. The answers arrived at are not easy, nor are they consistent. (Complex scientific problems rarely achieve simple and consistent answers either.) But they are most certianly there. To suggest that God cannot exist because the concepts of “omnipresent and omnipotent” somehow conflict is a bit like asking “I wonder if the earth might move around the sun?” One might want to see if there are answers already out there awaiting examination.
Eric Bergerud
In another area I think Mr. Huxley has spoken too quickly. In 1959 British physicist C.P. Snow published the famous essay “Two Cultures” in which he argued that those in sciences and those in the humanities were losing the common grounds required to converse. In particular, he (rightly in my view) blamed the fans of arts, lit and all things fuzzy, pointing out that almost any scientist knew Shakespeare but that an alarming number of art historians (or students of literature, etc etc) could not define “inertia.” In our day the specialization in education is so extreme that mutual ignorance has drawn much more even. I have never talked with a materialist that had a passing knowledge of theology. I have talked to only a handful of materialists that understood basic concepts of classical philosophy. When someone like Richard Dawkins pontificates about the impact of religion on history, I advise readers to skip to the next chapter for he knows nothing of which he speaks. (Of course there are still a lot of “right brainers” that have trouble with inertia.)
I think Mr. Huxley proves the point. Tussels over the essense of God (things like all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly righteous, existing outside of time and space) have concerned the finest minds in both theology and many in philosophy for centuries. The answers arrived at are not easy, nor are they consistent. (Complex scientific problems rarely achieve simple and consistent answers either.) But they are most certianly there. To suggest that God cannot exist because the concepts of “omnipresent and omnipotent” somehow conflict is a bit like asking “I wonder if the earth might move around the sun?” One might want to see if there are answers already out there awaiting examination.
Eric Bergerud
E
Esquire0130
Guest
Oh my heavens.
First, please converse with love. If you don’t love, your faith is an empty gong. Look at what you do above – you actually infer that I am CURSED!!! Please, let God do the judging, and just love. You make nervy, critical distinctions between serpents and snakes, as though it matters. It doesn’t, friend. The Catholic translators swing back-and-forth on the Hebrew word nachash. Mostly they render it serpent, but sometimes they render it “snake.” They didn’t really care. There’s no Biblical or Catholic teaching that it’s a serpent and not a snake. If you call it a snake, I promise that you will not go to Hell.
Bottom line: Relax; love.
Next, you say that there was an “Adam” and “Eve” – but what does that mean?
Do you mean that I have to believe in a man made out of clay, and a woman made out of rib?
Does that mean that I have to believe that they had no hominid ancestors?
Does that mean that I have to believe that the woman had a conversation with a snake? (By the way – do you have proof that there wasn’t a talking snake?)
By Adam do you mean a guy who lived 930 years?
O
oriel16
Guest
The Church is acting in the most anti-scientific manner by allowing the major Western astronomical achievement,produced by Copernicus and affirmed by Galileo,to be distorted and vandalised by the very same people who dumped a ‘cause’ into the evolutionary framework.
You were not asked about the history of Galileo,you were asked if you can understand how Copernicus worked out that the Earth is moving around the Sun ?,it is so simple with modern imaging that in its lowest form it represents common sense whereas it actually is a spectacular way to look into the celestial arena -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
If you wish to know why Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution was accepted in the prevailing empirical atmosphere of his era then you had better understand that the original vandalism of science within Chrsitian tradition began back with Newton.
The present Church is being complicit with a very anti-scientific agenda and unfamiliarity with the technical details is no longer an excuse.There are nuisance Christians who beg questions from empiricst ( even if the empiricists consider themselves ‘Christian’) but that is the equivalent of going to a prison and asking a prisoner about the joys of freedom.Until a clear direction is given,investigation into highly intuitive matters such as astronomy and evolutionary biology/geology remain in disrepute due to the intrusion of ridiculous premises and conclusions.
The priority is to look at why the background conditions arose that allowed Darwin to propose an essay on national supremacy as the ‘cause’ of God’s creation and the diversity of life and what ,in the name of God,has the Church been doing washing its hands of its scientific heritage.First of all - ‘empiricisim’ is not science and never will be.
Understand what Copernicus did and how he did it and Newton’s work disintegrates along with the ‘natural laws’ bandwagon which Darwin jumped on.
C
Crimson_Seraph
Guest
If there was never a global flood, than don’t you think that God was a little stupid to tell Noah to wait 100 years and build a big boat and put all these animals on it if all it was was a local flood? Here’s a thought, don’t build a boat Noah, just move.
Seriously, if it was just a local flood why didn’t God just tell Noah to move?
Seriously, if it was just a local flood why didn’t God just tell Noah to move?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
By all means, why are you Catholic if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings? Or are you trying to cause trouble among those do believe in the Church’s teachings. We have given you every bit of information on what the Church believes and what we are to accept on a certain matter. Adam and Eve did exist and it there is no biblical proof that they didn’t exist. Do you even believe in the Bible or Christianity in general?? Have you even read the Bible or the Catechism of the Catholic Church
B
buffalo
Guest
Guess where one of the best places to find stem cells is?
B
buffalo
Guest
God wanted to deceive Noah?If there was never a global flood, than don’t you think that God was a little stupid to tell Noah to wait 100 years and build a big boat and put all these animals on it if all it was was a local flood? Here’s a thought, don’t build a boat Noah, just move.
Seriously, if it was just a local flood why didn’t God just tell Noah to move?
God cannot deceive or be deceived.
C
Crimson_Seraph
Guest
I’de also like to say to all those Catholics and no-Catholic Christians who believe in evolution and don’t believe in Adam and Eve, just leave the faith. If Adam and Eve never existed than all of Scripture is a lie. If Adam and Eve were not the first humans and didn’t commit the first sin, than there is no reason for Christ to come into the world, and our faith is in vain.
E
Esquire0130
Guest
Hi, tobin. How are you doing?
You ask, “Why are you Catholic if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings?” I think that in part it is you who believes what the Church does not teach, and in part those teachings need some fine-tuning.
I think that in talking about these issues, you should deal, in plain language, in specifics. So, since you apparently are a strict monogenecist, you should say, “I, tobinatorstark, believe that Cain engaged in incest with his sister, after Eve talked to a talking serpent.” Though these and other such things are what distinguish Adam and Eve from anonymous first parents, I don’t actually see you enthusiastically endorsing these “doctrines.”
You ask, “Or are you trying to cause trouble among those do believe in the Church’s teachings.” Cause trouble? This is a discussion site. It’s purpose is to discuss the Faith. So, I articulate, with love and respect, including respect for those who declare me “accursed” (for that is the Catholic way of love), the problems generated by certain positions. We are here to KNOW, love and serve God. If some interpret Scripture to mean that God deprived the next 100,000,000,000 people of Heaven **because **of one actual sin of the first two people, it bothers me, so I ask about that. If some say that Adam and Eve were disease free, then I think to myself, “But I remember reading that homo sapiens’s ancestors suffered from sabertooth tiger skull bites and periodontal disease,” and I ask, “Oh, come on! Aren’t we looking at a hypothetical, or allegory, or allegorical hypothetical?” When Fundamentalists say, “God wouldn’t have evolved life via the trial-and-error system of natural selection – God is not a trial-and-error thinker, and he’s not a killer,” but then they say, “God stripped His Son of immunity to pain in some sense, and sent Him to Earth to horribly suffer and die, to save 100,000,000,000 people from the eternity in Hell He doomed them to because of the sin of two (2) people,” they seem to say things as senseless as the evolutionists. So, I ask questions.
Questions are good, tobin.
You ask, “Have you even read the Bible or the Catechism of the Catholic Church?” I’ve read the Bible several times. I’ve mentored Bible study for 30 years. I’ve written 10 published articles on the Bible.
I love the Bible. I love Christianity. I love our Church.
And, friend, I love you in a Christian way.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Now you are just over stepping boundries. What was allowed in the OT about creation was for man to population. Cain did sin killing Abel. Cain didn’t sin as to who is wife was.
I am well aware that this is a discussion site and I am not here to cause trouble, but am here to teach the truth. We all are called to teach the truth. Our mass is 100% biblical and our Bible is actual events. It’s not a bunch made up garbage. As for accepting what the Church’s teaching, I would abide by all the Church’s teachings. We are bound to accept those teachings. Rejecting them is rejecting Christ. If you don’t like the way I stick up for my beliefs and the Catholic teaching, tough. I really don’t care what you think. I am called to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. So get over it.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Also if the situation would be a little different and I come on this forum and say that I am Catholic and I don’t believe in the presence of the Eucharist and the transubstanation. There would be a million people here telling me that I have accept the Church’s teaching if I am Catholic. BTW I do believe in the Eucharist and everything that it entails. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t assert your opinion that the Eucharist is real. Would you tell someone if they denied something that important that the Church teaches?
E
Esquire0130
Guest
“What was allowed in the OT about creation was for man to population.” Okay, so you believe that the children of the first two parents only had sex with brothers and sisters. How about the talking snake part? Do you ascribe to that? If njot, why not? How about Adam’s age at death – 930 years? Do you ascribe to that? If not, why not?
“I am well aware that this is a discussion site and I am not here to cause trouble, but am here to teach the truth.” Well, don’t forget about learning. This is why we have a Magisterium.
“Our mass is 100% biblical and our Bible is actual events. It’s not a bunch made up garbage.” This sounds like loyalty to you, I am sure, but you have to be careful about assuming that it is 100% history. If it turns out that some of the stories are novellas – and some are – then you have within yourself a principle in your thinking that implies that those novellas, which are inspired and though fictional teach religious truth, are “garbage.”
“**As for accepting what the Church’s teaching, I would abide by all the Church’s teachings. We are bound to accept those teachings. Rejecting them is rejecting Christ. **” A loyal platitude, but things are not always so simple. One of the most challenging episodes in Magisterial history is the story of Pope Liberius, the first pope to not be declared a saint. As pope he issued a written decision condemning his own prior teaching as pope on the Arian formula for the Trinity. He thus declared that those who followed him in the case of the condemned teaching followed him right out of the church.
“I really don’t care what you think.” Well, I think that you are valuable in the eyes of God.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I really, really don’t think you know why we have a Magisterium.
I don’t even think you understand what it means for the Church to be the “pillar and foundation of the truth” – OR, for that matter, what kind of Church Jesus established.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
- Status