Thats fine, I disagree with them.They are folks who psychologically need a certain certainty in life, and a literalism in the bible is necessary to their peace of mind. Otherwise they can’t be sure, and that makes them uncomfortable.
Spiritmeadow Im sorry but I dont think you have a clue of what your talking about. First off I don’t take the story of adam and eve entirely literal, Some parts are symbolic of course.
They are not subject to logic because the need for certainty and having a book with all the answers is too essential to them.
I Don’t Hold to Sola Scriptura , Nor Do I believe the Book has all the answers in it. Im a Roman Catholic and I have not ever once said anything that’s contradictive of Catholic dogma. Your setting up a straw man of my beliefs now.
] There is no point arguing with them frankly. It is not a matter of logic or evidence, since we all agree that there is a monumental amount of evidence on the subject.
**Oh really?? I’d like to see some observable evidence. **
They can’t believe it, period. They get wrapped up into fear that God is somehow testing humanity, and only those who remain steadfast in denying the evidence of the senses will be saved. I long ago stopped trying to explain to such people, because they aren’t susceptible to common sense or any other kind of sense.
**
Another Smug Evolutionist what a shocker…**
The bible must be exactly right as written or their world falls apart. They have become idolators of a book which they call God. Very few seem to escape it, unless somehow they become willing to be intellectually honest and actually pursue the facts.
Again I dont worship the Bible I worship a Jewish Man named Yeshua. Im a Roman Catholic , your misrepresenting me so you can easily discredit my opinion.
The RCC could help a lot by making a clear statement instead of making their views implicit. Other churches may well be also guilty of the same thing.
This I totally agree with. The Church seems to say ok we accept this now, Go deal with it among yourselves. I find this highly irresponable.
Certainly in Protestantism, the more baptist type churches suffer this stuff to an increasing degree. Frankly until I came here, I thought that kind of backwards thinking was confined to them rather exclusively. It was shocking to find actual Roman Catholics believing in YEC.
**
Why is that, the Early Church Fathers did. In fact the entire Church did for about 1900 years. Your comment makes zero sense and has no basis in history or reality. You fail.**
I believe most mainline Protestant denominations actively state that evolution and faith are happily co-existant. They are not generally believers in literalism.
newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htmWe have defined the act of faith as the assent of the intellect to a truth which is beyond its comprehension, but which it accepts under the influence of the will moved by grace and from the analysis we are now in a position to define the virtue of faith as a supernatural habit by which we firmly believe those things to be true which God has revealed. Now every virtue is the perfection of some faculty, but faith results from the combined action of two faculties, viz., the intellect which elicits the act, and the will which moves the intellect to do so; consequently, the perfection of faith will depend upon the perfection with which each of these faculties performs its allotted task; the intellect must assent unhesitatingly, the will must promptly and readily move it to do so.
- If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
- Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
My post was not directed at you. As I said, I no longer waste my time on those who are intellectually dishonest. You have a need for evolution not to be true, and you will criticize your own church when convenient to maintain it. Blessings,Thats fine, I disagree with them.
I find you mean spirited and dishonest, and taking in pleasure putting yourself as high minded above all us little minds. Tell me what catholic in this post has flat out denied evolution not that its fate complete at that.My post was not directed at you. As I said, I no longer waste my time on those who are intellectually dishonest. You have a need for evolution not to be true, and you will criticize your own church when convenient to maintain it. Blessings,
YEC is not the only alternative to explain life and diversity. Rarely discussed in these threads is the origin of life; when, how and what as it relates to evolution? Most evolutionists (religious and secular) hold life began from a small organism(s) and from that evolved as described currently to the diversity of life we know today. The conjecture of what that first organism(s) were (size shape, complexity) are as provable as the existance of God. I posit there is more proof to God than there is of the origin of life.It was shocking to find actual Roman Catholics believing in YEC.
Yes, perhaps to you. But I think the point I made was like looking at the glass as half full, while your friend’s point was like looking at the glass half empty.I think he has a point to some degree.
You are quite right, YEC is but one alternative to explain life. And evolution doesn’t address the origin of life at all, but merely explains how life changed over time.YEC is not the only alternative to explain life and diversity. Rarely discussed in these threads is the origin of life; when, how and what as it relates to evolution? Most evolutionists (religious and secular) hold life began from a small organism(s) and from that evolved as described currently to the diversity of life we know today. The conjecture of what that first organism(s) were (size shape, complexity) are as provable as the existance of God. I posit there is more proof to God than there is of the origin of life.
What if the first tree was a tree a billion years ago and not a supermicrobe that genesised into all ofther life? Evolution would still be true as it only describes a change from what was before to what is now and coul dexplain all the diversity in trees. What if each creature and species that ever lived was created as is at the proper time in Earths geologic history with the human being being the last new Creation a few thousand years ago?
Is that any more fancifull to the non-religious who do not accept any God or the many miracles accepted by the religious? Most religious people that accept evolution as currently explained would not deny the possibility that God could have created the Earth and all life in the literal 6 days just 6000 years ago. They reason it unlikely in the face of the evidence that suggests an old Earth but most that are honest will admit at least the possibility of the YEC for God is all powerfull. I think atheists do have a point in calling the religous contradicting themselves when accepting the supernatural in some things whil enot in others.
The religious, like the non-religious should look for logic and reason in acepting any theory or belief system. The religous (Catholics/non-Catholic Christians) use the logic and reason to support the belief in the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels to include the many miracles. The non-religious use the same logic and reason to dismiss it and God as it does not have that scientific value to it like evolution seems to them.
When I see the modern religious often bending over backwards to avoid having to answer the seeming real religious contradictions of theology and science I described elsewhere to the non-religious in order to agree with the ‘science’ that proves evolution I think its like a reverse application of the religious that punished the scientists when the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe. Now we seem to be going the other way.
I’m sorry you find me meanspirited. I’ve engaged in evolutionary debate for a long time and no longer waste the time since I don’t find a willingness to engage in real discussion. There is flatly no argument that evolution is real. Period. You can read all the bad science by apologists you want but they are only making money off a psychological need by the fundamentalist mind. That is sad, but a fact none the less. Dozens of disciplines depend on evolution as their model and we are the benefactors of their work in ways you can’t begin to realize. Medicine is foremost on the list.I find you mean spirited and dishonest, and taking in pleasure putting yourself as high minded above all us little minds. Tell me what catholic in this post has flat out denied evolution not that its fate complete at that.
No, and I don’t think they allow women, but I don’t know enough to be sure.Spirit meadow ,
Are you a Member of the freemasons?
I agree that the Church could be more explicit. However, Pope Benedict sees evolution as virtually certain, and Pope John Paul had this to say:The RCC could help a lot by making a clear statement instead of making their views implicit. Other churches may well be also guilty of the same thing…
I’m sorry I guess you just had a lot of fire in your tone, in generalizing us Catholics are of one opinion on creation, which we are not.I’m sorry you find me meanspirited.
I agree with much of what you say, but this is incorrect. YEC cannot explain the origin of life. Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added). Creation by the Abrahamic God cannot explain the origin of life. At best it can explain the origin of the second living thing from the first living thing.You are quite right, YEC is but one alternative to explain life.
Indeed that is what I have read. Thanks for the nice quote.I agree that the Church could be more explicit. However, Pope Benedict sees evolution as virtually certain, and Pope John Paul had this to say:
Pope John Paul II
Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.
I must be writing horribly inelegantly again. Please reread, as I did not say this, but I’m truly sorry you misapprehended that way. My point was first that I was shocked that ANY Roman Catholic would take such a fundamentalist position. I know quite well that most Catholics can see the absolute clarity of evolution and that both of the last popes have said that they agree that evolution is a proven concept in general. Forgive me for giving the wrong impression.I’m sorry I guess you just had a lot of fire in your tone, in generalizing us Catholics are of one opinion on creation, which we are not.
Rossum, I seem unable to be clear today. Of course you are quite right. I understand that YEC’s don’t propose any origin of life in a proveable sense. I was merely shorthand saying that YEC’s are usually fundamentalists who accept that the bible tells how life began, by God as the creatures we know today. Sorry for the misunderstanding.I agree with much of what you say, but this is incorrect. YEC cannot explain the origin of life. Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added). Creation by the Abrahamic God cannot explain the origin of life. At best it can explain the origin of the second living thing from the first living thing.
Despite their many gaps, the scientific hypotheses about abiogensis are more of an explanation of the origin of life than YEC creationism.
rossum
Yes of course, as did everyone. They also taught that the sun revolved around the earth and most everyone for a very long time thought the earth was flat. your point? The RCC has accepted that science has proved a number of things wrong. They accept evolution now as any reading of JPII or Benedict will show. Welcome to the 21st century.Im not sure why you would be shocked by this when the church held this position for nearly 2000 years.
God Spoke and it was …Ex Nilhio