In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[Not_Sure_1]

Uh. Yeah. Actually, I would say lot of the ancient people’s weren’t so bright in some regards. These are the same people who believed the earth was on the back of an elephant or a turtle after all.

Cuz they’re not rampaging across the seas, eating ships, and turning coastal cities into their own personal nesting ground.

I do not believe the true faith depends so much on mythical fantasies of ancient desert people.

Of course, otherwise we’d be extinct. A monster like that would’ve decimated much of the world’s ecosystems both on sea and on land. Firebreath? Impenetrable steel hide? No primitive culture would’ve stood a chance.

The same with Behemoth.

In fact, plenty of mythological beasts would have the capacity to wipe us all out (even with modern day weaponry) unless we had equally fantastical means of putting them down.

So Jesus and Mary believed in vain things? Moses who heard the word of God was a bit daft? Do you believe in miracles or do you believe in a watchmaker God who keeps away from the physical world? Remember that a belief in a God who keeps is hand from the physical world is a heresy according to Blessed Pope Pius IX syllabus of errors.

The Dragons did cause destruction, and were slain by men. How many legends! How many saints! There is a town in France named after someone who saved a town from a dragon. They were slain by men, after the world was no longer so hospitable to them. Maybe their reproduction was inhibited, maybe they were slow to reproduce. The pygmies in the Congo swear there is a monster like Behemoth in their lake.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Uh. Yeah. Actually, I would say lot of the ancient people’s weren’t so bright in some regards. These are the same people who believed the earth was on the back of an elephant or a turtle after all.

Cuz they’re not rampaging across the seas, eating ships, and turning coastal cities into their own personal nesting ground.

I do not believe the true faith depends so much on mythical fantasies of ancient desert people.

Of course, otherwise we’d be extinct. A monster like that would’ve decimated much of the world’s ecosystems both on sea and on land. Firebreath? Impenetrable steel hide? No primitive culture would’ve stood a chance.

The same with Behemoth.

In fact, plenty of mythological beasts would have the capacity to wipe us all out (even with modern day weaponry) unless we had equally fantastical means of putting them down.

You should really read Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. He speaks of the pagans and their myths. Especially on how their myth was separate from their religion. The point of their myths as it were.

“When the Professor is told by the Polynesian that once there was nothing except a great feathered serpent, unless the learned man feels a thrill and a half temptation to wish it were true, he is no judge of such things at all. When he is assured, on the best Red Indian authority, that a primitive hero carried the sun and moon and stars in a box, unless he clasps his hands and almost kicks his legs as a child would at such a charming fancy, he knows nothing about the matter.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

The Bible is not mythology, their might be allegory in the Psalms (because their poetry), in the Song of Solomon (for being an Ode), but Exodus is definitely not, and neither is Genesis.

Do you believe the ancients are so daft? They can run us around with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy without the tools that we have. They could make philosophy and art. The men in caves were not idiots for they could make such great art. Their myths were there to inspire wonder, as they waited for the God that they believed abandoned them.

If the history of the Israelites was a myth (Genesis to Nehemiah), why would they paint such an unflattering portrait of themselves. The entire history of the Old Testament is God reaching a hand to Israel, and they rejecting him.

“From Abel to Zechariah, thou hast killed the prophets, O Jerusalem”

 

[RobbyS]

I’m sorry if I seem uncharitable, but it is sometimes more unchariable to go along with untruths.

As for me, my faith is weakened by those who take God to be some David Copperfield with a magic finger – an anthropomorphic (finite) entity that has great powers. Actually I’m in India right now and they have a TV series Sivam (I guess about the god Siva, bec our TV doesn’t work). They represent him as a human – which is typical of most theistic and polytheistic religions (tho Christianity & even Hinduism has always gone beyond such a view). St. John of the Cross has told us (and I was raised to believe) that God is beyond our finite human comprehension. That’s how the creationists harm my beliefs by making God according to their views, rather than accepting God, and understanding through creation a little about God – tho we will only see clearly in Heaven. If God chose to create creation thru a big bang and evolution, that really is His business, not ours. Why should we be in disagreement with God about how He created things. That is disrespect. I choose to accept what the scientists are saying (indeed I teach evolution), with the understanding that science can only deal with the material world (not the spiritual), and it advances and changes with better evidence and theories – I accept what they say provisionally. But to reject what they have found (we could have only found out about evolution, not made it up or imagined it without evidence from God’s creation), it seems to me to be a sin.

But really the biggest heart-ache for me is that young people being taught a strict, literalist creationism may eventually come to learn about evolution and realize the scientists are correct (and not just a bunch of evil, despicable people), and at that point they may turn against religion thinking it based on falsehoods (and perhaps used for nefarious purposes, if they fall in with some militant atheists). I think rejecting scientific “truths” – limited and subject to change with better evidence/theories tho they be – does harm to religion. Souls could be lost.

I used to have a “live and let live” attitude of let people believe whatever they will, as long as they believe God created creation. Now I’m thinking this attack against science and scientist by creationists and climate change denialists (within the Church) may backfire once people come to the truth, and they may leave the Church and may lose their immortal souls, not to mention it is not good for the souls of those who insist on rejecting what scientists have discovered. JPII and BXVI have chosen the wise path of accepting evolution, so as not to cause scandal to the Church and push young people out.

It is not charity to go along with untruths that may harm people.

Creationists come in many varieties. Most broadly, it is those who deny the atheism/skepticism that one finds not in the* Origin of Species*, at least not explicitly, but in his less well-know book, the* Descent of Man*. The latter reflects how loss of his personal faith in the wake of the death of a young daughter he idolized. Darwinism then becomes a vehicle for attacking traditional Christianity. It has remained such. The famous “Scopes" trial, came about because the doctrine was presented as a way to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, to persuade people to reject not only what is said in Genesis, but the very idea of a personal God, such as the God we read about in the Bible. The attack goes on, and it seems that intuitively many, many Americans reject this. Are they ignorant of the biology? Well, maybe yes, but they see what is at stake, just as Mexican Catholics in the 1920s did when they killed the government teachers who were preaching atheism, spurred on by the Calles regime.

 

[RACJ]

Creationists come in many varieties. Most broadly, it is those who deny the atheism/skepticism that one finds not in the* Origin of Species*, at least not explicitly, but in his less well-know book, the* Descent of Man*. The latter reflects how loss of his personal faith in the wake of the death of a young daughter he idolized. Darwinism then becomes a vehicle for attacking traditional Christianity. It has remained such. The famous “Scopes" trial, came about because the doctrine was presented as a way to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, to persuade people to reject not only what is said in Genesis, but the very idea of a personal God, such as the God we read about in the Bible. The attack goes on, and it seems that intuitively many, many Americans reject this. Are they ignorant of the biology? Well, maybe yes, but they see what is at stake, just as Mexican Catholics in the 1920s did when they killed the government teachers who were preaching atheism, spurred on by the Calles regime.

Interesting post. As for me, I simply use logic and reject the possibility that paramecia inexplicably successfully mutated billions of times to become man. There is nothing in nature or experimentation that could lead anyone to imagine that “simple” life became geometrically more complex over time. THIS to me is silly “magic man” talk, not intelligent design. No matter how you slice it, everyone who believes in God believes that at some point something paranormal took place. Rob

 

[lynnvinc]

Creationists come in many varieties. Most broadly, it is those who deny the atheism/skepticism that one finds not in the* Origin of Species*, at least not explicitly, but in his less well-know book, the* Descent of Man*. The latter reflects how loss of his personal faith in the wake of the death of a young daughter he idolized. Darwinism then becomes a vehicle for attacking traditional Christianity. It has remained such. The famous “Scopes" trial, came about because the doctrine was presented as a way to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, to persuade people to reject not only what is said in Genesis, but the very idea of a personal God, such as the God we read about in the Bible. The attack goes on, and it seems that intuitively many, many Americans reject this. Are they ignorant of the biology? Well, maybe yes, but they see what is at stake, just as Mexican Catholics in the 1920s did when they killed the government teachers who were preaching atheism, spurred on by the Calles regime.

I’m thinking this is all the more reason for believers to uphold their belief in scientific “truths,” and show that it is perfectly possible to believe in everything science comes up with, as well as belief in God and Christian beliefs (personal God, divinity of Jesus, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc).

In fact the context in which I started considering it a sin to reject evolution was the YouTube Eucharist desecration event in 2008, and my first acquaintance with new and militant atheists. It just gives them a lot more grist for their mill if believers insist on creationism and reject science.

I have never ever had any problem whatsoever in believing in evolution AND God (including Jesus and a personal God) – in fact believing in Jesus is sort of akin to science, since we base our beliefs on what the Apostles have told us they heard and saw (empirical evidence), and then we take a teeny tiny leap of faith to believe the words of the man who calmed the sea, raised the dead, and resurrected from death unto life – such a man would surely know the Truth and know of which he speaks. If such a man says so, it is so. Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Likewise I believe scientists doing their science on the material happenings of the world.

I find no contradiction. If the Bible indicates that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west (and the earth is not going around the sun), and that God created man from dirt (which is found in many ancient myths), then I would take it that a the Bible writers not having the scientific background back then did not understand completely (and we should not expect them to have known all). Ancient religions (and their scriptures) are theology-science-ethics-history-education-media-entertainment all combined. Only in recent times have we separated all these.

To the extent the Bible is a science book, it is perhaps now “out-of-date” as many science books even written years and decades ago are; but this does not in any way mean the Bible is invalid for spiritual, theological, and moral spheres of life, or that we can’t get a tremendous amount of insight out of the not-so-scientific stories. It is truly amazing how accurate the Bible is in many ways – that we were cast out of Eden and made to plow by the sweat of our brow. Archaeology now tells us that was sort of how it was for the first agriculturalists (it was not the great ag revolution and progress earlier archaeology told us it was, but almost like a step backwards). The “fall of man” surely helps me to understand a lot of what is going on today.

Maybe there is this “need-to-know” basis, and back then people did not need to know about evolution or the earth going around the sun. God is alive – not some statue carved in stone. He knows what we need, more than we do.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So Jesus and Mary believed in vain things? Moses who heard the word of God was a bit daft?

I would think that seeing a burning bush is grounds for LSD influence. So yeah.

What? Just because Moses was a Biblical figure doesn’t mean He was perfect. And man Jesus. He is actually the best example as to why we shouldn’t be quick to depend on OT literalism. You’re talking about the man who made the Pharisees and the Scribes grit their teeth.

What about you? Are you saying that Jesus actually didn’t know better? You’re just rehashing another person’s argument. What if Jesus DID know the zero value of literalism? What if He actually just did the smart thing and acknowledged them for higher values like their moral and spiritual truths?

Remember that a belief in a God who keeps is hand from the physical world is a heresy according to Blessed Pope Pius IX syllabus of errors.

There’s a fine line between that and not believing in the magical genie God. Remember, God sees more faith in those who believed but did not need to see. Catholics don’t need proof of a magical, Christian fairy tale world to believe in God. Our doctrines are barely based on such frivolities.

Don’t lecture Catholics on what and what not to believe when your very views not only NOT required but on its way to obsolescence and hopefully, heresy.

The Dragons did cause destruction, and were slain by men. How many legends! How many saints! There is a town in France named after someone who saved a town from a dragon. They were slain by men, after the world was no longer so hospitable to them. Maybe their reproduction was inhibited, maybe they were slow to reproduce. The pygmies in the Congo swear there is a monster like Behemoth in their lake.

LOL!!! Yeah sure. A tiny sword pierced the steel hide of a mighty dragon.
So tell me, where can I find Excalibur or Durendal? Do you know the location of the REAL Kusanagi?

Man, for the first in a long time I am once again on the side of the environmentalists. Think of the wonderful things we could do if dragons were real. Just like the dodo or the passenger pigeon, a wonderful species and creation of God was slain by pompous dolts in shining armor.

I might just pray to God right now and say, “Dear Lord, please bring the dragons back. I’m getting sick of knights. And no, Don Quixote didn’t humiliate them enough.”

“When the Professor is told by the Polynesian that once there was nothing except a great feathered serpent, unless the learned man feels a thrill and a half temptation to wish it were true, he is no judge of such things at all. When he is assured, on the best Red Indian authority, that a primitive hero carried the sun and moon and stars in a box, unless he clasps his hands and almost kicks his legs as a child would at such a charming fancy, he knows nothing about the matter.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

Once again, your lack of knowledge about me and my type shows. Forgotten how I actually wish the world was like that? Have you forgotten how I know many others who struggle with the bitter realities of this wretched, boring world?

But the fact is, as much as I appreciate the wonders of myth, I have to take my feet back down to reality. I know what happens to people who get lost so much in that fairy tale. Read up on the many horror stories of gamers and geeks who wasted themselves away and justified it with the same line of thinking in the quote you just cited.

You’re indirectly advocating unhealthy escapism. Think about that.

I for one will never buy your myths unless God Himself comes down and apologizes on His knees about forcing the likes of me to live disappointed lives and for His theological inconsistencies that result from Him taking away the world we often dream about.

Do you believe the ancients are so daft? They can run us around with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy without the tools that we have. They could make philosophy and art. The men in caves were not idiots for they could make such great art. Their myths were there to inspire wonder, as they waited for the God that they believed abandoned them.

LOL! Are you aware that Greek philosophers actually questioned their mythology? You think atheism is some modernist school of thought? Hardly! For all you know, the mathematicians and astronomists you cite could’ve been skeptics themselves.

If the history of the Israelites was a myth (Genesis to Nehemiah), why would they paint such an unflattering portrait of themselves. The entire history of the Old Testament is God reaching a hand to Israel, and they rejecting him.

“From Abel to Zechariah, thou hast killed the prophets, O Jerusalem”

Unflattering? Hardly. The Greeks had moments where the gods toyed with and punished mortals too. Study your mythology. You’ll see many cases were man has been naught but a peon of the gods.

God does not see us as peons. Neither do I, His child, see Him as some divine tyrant.

 

[grannymh]

Oh but no, the literalists here don’t want to accept anything that smells like a scientific view. They want real monsters. They want real ice mixed with fire in the form of burning hail. They want to stick to the medieval peasant way of thinking (and do so proudly).

They want a world that they can brag about to their equally delusional pagan counterparts who spend too much time playing Age of Mythology.

While I have noticed that some rather unique ideas about a supernatural being have been expressed in this thread, I cannot now find them. But not all is lost.

Here is a thought I had missed.
From post 648 – “Oh but no, the literalists here don’t want to accept anything that smells like a scientific view.” Please tell me what scientific view regarding human origins you are smelling. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry if I seem uncharitable, but it is sometimes more unchariable to go along with untruths.

As for me, my faith is weakened by those who take God to be some David Copperfield with a magic finger – an anthropomorphic (finite) entity that has great powers. Actually I’m in India right now and they have a TV series Sivam (I guess about the god Siva, bec our TV doesn’t work). They represent him as a human – which is typical of most theistic and polytheistic religions (tho Christianity & even Hinduism has always gone beyond such a view). St. John of the Cross has told us (and I was raised to believe) that God is beyond our finite human comprehension. That’s how the creationists harm my beliefs by making God according to their views, rather than accepting God, and understanding through creation a little about God – tho we will only see clearly in Heaven. If God chose to create creation thru a big bang and evolution, that really is His business, not ours. Why should we be in disagreement with God about how He created things. That is disrespect. I choose to accept what the scientists are saying (indeed I teach evolution), with the understanding that science can only deal with the material world (not the spiritual), and it advances and changes with better evidence and theories – I accept what they say provisionally. But to reject what they have found (we could have only found out about evolution, not made it up or imagined it without evidence from God’s creation), it seems to me to be a sin.

But really the biggest heart-ache for me is that young people being taught a strict, literalist creationism may eventually come to learn about evolution and realize the scientists are correct (and not just a bunch of evil, despicable people), and at that point they may turn against religion thinking it based on falsehoods (and perhaps used for nefarious purposes, if they fall in with some militant atheists). I think rejecting scientific “truths” – limited and subject to change with better evidence/theories tho they be – does harm to religion. Souls could be lost.

I used to have a “live and let live” attitude of let people believe whatever they will, as long as they believe God created creation. Now I’m thinking this attack against science and scientist by creationists and climate change denialists (within the Church) may backfire once people come to the truth, and they may leave the Church and may lose their immortal souls, not to mention it is not good for the souls of those who insist on rejecting what scientists have discovered. JPII and BXVI have chosen the wise path of accepting evolution, so as not to cause scandal to the Church and push young people out.

It is not charity to go along with untruths that may harm people.

Presently, I am in the midst of catching up with current “evolution” research and how interpreters are intimidating Catholics regarding the human person.

While the results of Francisco Ayala’s 1995 seminal research paper have been updated, the basic problems with methods and materials remain and will continue to remain because even the coalescence theory cannot account for everything which happened, every day, everywhere going backwards millions of years.

Those “scientific” truths are built on assumptions and estimates which may or may not be accurate. Personally, out of respect for scientists, I will grant that their estimates and their adaptations of the Wright-Fisher models (though it looks like there is a new method which works with the complete genome) are reasonable considering the individual particular hypothesis in the research paper. What people need to realize is that the evidence in these research papers does not warrant an extrapolation to an universal conclusion.

May I offer that the real problem is not necessarily rejecting "scientific’ truths, the real problem is that people are not prepared to determine what these truths refer to. Nor do people know about the nitty-gritty of research which determines if the research has been carried out properly. What is worse in my mind, is that many do not properly understand Catholic doctrine and how it is applied. Add to this is the difference in research language because of old and new fossil finds. Another problem is that some, not all, people are still in the early 20th century regarding knowledge about evolution relationships. By the way, my heroes are Motoo Kimura and Carl Woese.

I saw your distinction between the material world and the spiritual world which is excellent. The current question is what happens when the two worlds intersect as in human origin.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Please tell me what scientific view regarding human origins you are smelling. Thank you.

Well as you yourself have put it, the ‘nitty-gritty of research’ comes to mind. People aren’t willing to hear scientific explanations of OT events (not just the creation events mind you). It diminishes the literal value.

For instance, as with human origins, they reject the evolutionary development of the human body in favor of being made literally out of earth. This isn’t symbolism. They seriously insist that we’re made out of clay and God just magically turned into all into organic flesh.

 

[grannymh]

What about you? Are you saying that Jesus actually didn’t know better? You’re just rehashing another person’s argument. What if Jesus DID know the zero value of literalism? What if He actually just did the smart thing and acknowledged them for higher values like their moral and spiritual truths?

Interesting question which dates to the Reformation. Actually, this question is acknowledged in Chapter Six of the Gospel of John.

I for one will never buy your myths unless God Himself comes down and apologizes on His knees about forcing the likes of me to live disappointed lives and for His theological inconsistencies that result from Him taking away the world we often dream about.

This may be a stretch, but in a sense, God already apologized on the cross.
The bleeding Christ is seen as the ultimate disappointed life. There is the ultimate inconsistency of two natures in one Person. Here is Christ in human humility and obedience. Yet, in a real sense, Christ restored the possible world that Adam dreamed of.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Yet, in a real sense, Christ restored the possible world that Adam dreamed of.

That depends on what you would deem as ‘the world Adam dreamed of’.

 

[grannymh]

For instance, as with human origins, they reject the evolutionary development of the human body in favor of being made literally out of earth. This isn’t symbolism. They seriously insist that we’re made out of clay and God just magically turned into all into organic flesh.

This sounds extreme because of the word magically. I doubt if creationist writings use the word magically because that does not comport with creation terminology.

Evolution of the human body can be assumed because of its material relationship with non-human living organisms such as the rest of the vertebrates. (Refer to the cladistic system of classification which is used by scientists.) But according to Catholicism, human nature, in itself, is an unique unification of *both *the material principle and the spiritual principle. Thus, God does intervene in regard to present human beings no matter how one describes human’s decomposing anatomy.

The assumption of evolution cannot address the complete person. Thus, Catholicism can respect the evolution “discoveries” which, by the way, are very important in the medical arena; but it cannot declare that evolution alone is solely responsible for the origin of the human species.

With the current fossil finds, the possible ancestors of humans are not in an orderly manner due to their extinction. Humans are the only extant species in the wiggly “line” of hominids or hominims.

Catholics can accept evolution theories with the belief that the Creator is responsible for the fully-complete human nature, i.e., body and soul. How the body arrived is not magical. Since the human species is peerless, the body could have appeared instantly, but this would not be due to magic. Catholicism recognizes the difference in power between a supernatural Creator and a human magician.

 

[grannymh]

That depends on what you would deem as ‘the world Adam dreamed of’.

Actually, it depends on the Catholic teaching regarding Adam and the fact that he, as well as us, was/is called to share in God’s divine happiness. Are you aware of that Catholic teaching? Many people are not aware of all the implications.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Actually, it depends on the Catholic teaching regarding Adam and the fact that he, as well as us, was/is called to share in God’s divine happiness. Are you aware of that Catholic teaching? Many people are not aware of all the implications.

I wasn’t clear, my apologies. I was referring more to what is doctrinally defined as ‘the world Adam dreamed of’. I’ve studied salvation history like any well-informed Catholic. Frankly, I never saw anything that made the case that our world was once like the Christian version of the God of War universe.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This sounds extreme because of the word magically. I doubt if creationist writings use the word magically because that does not comport with creation terminology.

Yeah I know. Cuz magic is teh deeeebil.
I use the term more loosely. Semantic details aside, it’s clear that earth can’t really transmute into organic muscle, bones, and organs in an instant.

Evolution of the human body can be assumed because of its material relationship with non-human living organisms such as the rest of the vertebrates. (Refer to the cladistic system of classification which is used by scientists.) But according to Catholicism, human nature, in itself, is an unique unification of *both *the material principle and the spiritual principle. Thus, God does intervene in regard to present human beings no matter how one describes human’s decomposing anatomy.

Oh sure. I’ll take that. It’s not like the soul is within the capacity of science to really ‘study’.

On the other hand, that’s not the same as believing that everything in the world was created out of the Four Classical Elements.

The assumption of evolution cannot address the complete person. Thus, Catholicism can respect the evolution “discoveries” which, by the way, are very important in the medical arena; but it cannot declare that evolution alone is solely responsible for the origin of the human species.

I don’t contest that. I just put my focus purely on those who insist on disrespecting the said discoveries regarding evolution. Literalists do so with such ferocity, it’s almost feral.

Catholics can accept evolution theories with the belief that the Creator is responsible for the fully-complete human nature, i.e., body and soul.

Ah yes but that’s not acceptable for literalists. Oh no. In order to be a good Catholic (according to them), you must believe in stories where frogs can transmute from pure river water and that the saints fought all kinds of monsters.

 

[grannymh]

I wasn’t clear, my apologies. I was referring more to what is doctrinally defined as ‘the world Adam dreamed of’. I’ve studied salvation history like any well-informed Catholic. Frankly, I never saw anything that made the case that our world was once like the Christian version of the God of War universe.

Before getting into the God of War universe, I am referring to Adam before salvation history was necessary.

What kind of world would Adam dream of? My guess is that it is close, if not the same, as the world we, today, dream of.

One of the Catholic doctrines in this area is that Adam was called to share in God’s divine happiness. By the way, it is this “call of God” doctrine that leads back to the reality of Adam.

I may be wrong (which would be the first time ) but it seems to me that creationists do not necessarily go into the depth of Adam’s existence pre-Fall the way Catholicism does. This is why I debate the validity of the 46%.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lost,

This is simply another one of your straw-man arguments. You have said everything you can to discredit literalists - and you are wrong in your arguments and conclusions.

In my view there are two legitimate approaches we can take in addressing human origins:

**1.) we either believe God was completely in control, or

2.) we don’t believe.**

There are several ‘flavors’ of the first approach - and literalism falls into this category. The idea - however presented- that the all of Creation, or any particular element could have come into existence and then remain in existence without God’s Power is sadly in error.

Ridiculing those who do not agree with you - as you have repeatedly done - shows a lack of depth and insight. You can certainly challenge anyone you want - but, this lack of respect has grown tiresome.

God bless

Precisely.

Oh but no, the literalists here don’t want to accept anything that smells like a scientific view. They want real monsters. They want real ice mixed with fire in the form of burning hail. They want to stick to the medieval peasant way of thinking (and do so proudly).

They want a world that they can brag about to their equally delusional pagan counterparts who spend too much time playing Age of Mythology.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Why do you say this?

I may be wrong (which would be the first time ) but it seems to me that creationists do not necessarily go into the depth of Adam’s existence pre-Fall the way Catholicism does. .

Adam and Eve being created by God in a state of perfect happiness is literally right there in black and white. Personally, I do not spend a lot of time with the Creationist approach because I think they are not giving God credit for All He Can Do.

God bless

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There are several ‘flavors’ of the first approach - and literalism falls into this category. The idea - however presented- that the all of Creation, or any particular element could have come into existence and then remain in existence without God’s Power is sadly in error.

The only one with a strawman is you. Where in any of my arguments have I denied God’s Power and Hand in creation?

Just because I reject a fairy tale view of reality doesn’t mean I reject God’s involvement in Creation. Such false dichotomy is the real strawman.

Ridiculing those who do not agree with you - as you have repeatedly done - shows a lack of depth and insight. You can certainly challenge anyone you want - but, this lack of respect has grown tiresome.God bless

Given your own hypocritical straw man, you’re not in any position to lecture me or anyone else about insight. You know what I find tiresome? Those who defend people and positions that have caused many to kill themselves through neglect and self-delusion.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What kind of world would Adam dream of? My guess is that it is close, if not the same, as the world we, today, dream of.

Could you elaborate on this? Mankind is capable of dreaming up many worlds. We wouldn’t have so many interesting myths and stories if otherwise.

One of the Catholic doctrines in this area is that Adam was called to share in God’s divine happiness. By the way, it is this “call of God” doctrine that leads back to the reality of Adam.

Yes I know this is core doctrine but that’s not what I’m contesting here. I’m just troubled by how literal creationists seek to justify the very worldview that causes the delusion people accuse bookworms and gamers alike of falling into.

To really simplify, I don’t necessarily disagree with the finer points of theology that you’re pointing out. My focus is purely on the physical, material (and in my personal opinion, dull) side of reality.