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

[grannymh]

Well I’m not about to discuss the complications of how man came to develop a soul.

The spiritual soul is created directly by God at conception. Not much to discuss there.

On the bright side, it’s elaborated well more than the fairy tale idea that we once lived in the “Golden Age of powerful gods and extraordinary heroes” (as that Disney movie put it).

Here is a good example of speaking two different languages or perhaps you are talking about one religion and I am talking about another religion.

What religion teaches that we once lived in the “Golden Age of powerful gods and extraordinary heroes” (as that Disney movie put it)? If that is the idea of a Disney movie–it sure is clueless about Catholicism.

Speaking about language. I can’t quite get my brain wrapped around the expression “literalists” as if there is some group of people. Would your literalists be similar to fundamentalism which is usually a separate movement away from Catholicism?

Oh and I almost forgot, the whole Adam’s age thing?

No problem. Adam’s age is not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[grannymh]

No.
I am saying that if the unit of measure is not fixed at the beginning, it may not be at all throughout the book.

Since a day is undetermined at the beginning of the genesis story, then about the only thing we can say for certain is that there was a specific length of time meant by the term.

Genesis 1:1 is for certain.

 

[grannymh]

Why then were there figures thrown around if it was based on nothing. Why is it translated as “year” if a year was not 360 or 365 days. Nothing is to be taken at face value, a year was not a year, the genealogy does not add up, what makes one think Adam and Eve, or whatever their names were, are actual people who existed? Barely anything is to be taken literally except Adam and Eve, right? Can you imagine the masses of people reading the OT and the Book of Genesis thinking 930 meant 930, that whoever Cain married was not one of his sisters, whom, incidentally, is never mentioned as being his sister or his niece. Why would the oT state that Adam was 930 years old when he was likely anything but or that they didn’t have any measure of time, but never mention how Cain was related to his wife? If I’m writing a book about a French man who lived in the 1700’s, if he inherited a large amount by the time’s standard (150 000 French francs) I’ll try to figure out a way to let the 2012 reader have a tiny idea what that might represent. How is it useful to be told that God created the world in 6 days if it wasn’t 6 days? How did the author of the Book of Genesis come up with 930? The problem I have is if the OT is mostly fiction or things that no ordinary human being can comprehend with any level of certainty, why was it written in the 1st place? I don’t want allegory, I don’t want myths, I want to be told what happened, otherwise don’t bother telling me stuff that can be 1/4 accurate, 1/2 accurate. 100% accurate (Adam and Eve apparently) or not accurate at all. Catholics need to constantly reinterpret the OT to keep up with scientific knowledge, sometimes clutching at straws and making outlandish conjectures to try to keep the OT from totally falling apart and be placed on the book shelf next to “Santa Claus” and “The Tooth Fairy” See, here it says “year” but it’s not really a year, here it says “brothers”, but it doesn’t mean brothers.

Relax!
Read a few Psalms including #23. Or read Isaiah 55.

 

[Robertanthony]

If the God who supposedly inspired the author of the Book of Genesis to write that Adam lived 930 years , that it took 6 days for God to create the universe, that all of the animals contained on this Earth which can’t swim had to be in pairs on a ship built in a desert, that Adam was made from earth and one of his ribs was used to make Eve (if we found human fossils that were determined to have been those of Adam, would we find him missing a rib?) is the same God who inspired whichever council to proclaim as sure doctrine (that Catholics are mandated to believe) the real existence of Adam* and Eve*, am I justified in not being convinced? I’m sure nobody had a problem interpreting the Old Testament as a reliable history book up until science made it impossible. Science told the Catholic Church that the Book of Genesis especially could not be read as a believable account of how things unfolded. Now it’s allegorical, poetic, lyric, figurative, topical time because that’s the position science forced the Catholic Church to adopt. Science talks and the Church nods yes.

*The names may have been changed.

 

[vz71]

Nevertheless, Jesus’ life was full of such signs and wonders.

Because people were weak of faith.

No.
It was to fulfill the prophecies that God had in place, that all could look upon them and believe in Him.

 

[grannymh]

If the God who supposedly inspired the author of the Book of Genesis to write that Adam lived 930 years , that it took 6 days for God to create the universe, that all of the animals contained on this Earth which can’t swim had to be in pairs on a ship built in a desert, that Adam was made from earth and one of his ribs was used to make Eve (if we found human fossils that were determined to have been those of Adam, would we find him missing a rib?) is the same God who inspired whichever council to proclaim as sure doctrine (that Catholics are mandated to believe) the real existence of Adam* and Eve*, am I justified in not being convinced? I’m sure nobody had a problem interpreting the Old Testament as a reliable history book up until science made it impossible. Science told the Catholic Church that the Book of Genesis especially could not be read as a believable account of how things unfolded. Now it’s allegorical, poetic, lyric, figurative, topical time because that’s the position science forced the Catholic Church to adopt. Science talks and the Church nods yes.

*The names may have been changed.

Maybe a cup of tea will help.

Did you get a chance to read the suggested Psalm 23? Or Isaiah 55?

 

[grannymh]

No.
It was to fulfill the prophecies that God had in place, that all could look upon them and believe in Him.

The “mutually exclusive or” strikes again. Jesus had multiple reasons for His miracles.

 

[vz71]

I suppose so.

But I really dislike the concept that all of this was because human faith was weak.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

My dad was in the oil business, and I was early exposed to fossils found in drilling cores. IAC, most people object to the implicit atheism/agnosticism, and the indifference to the desire of most people about first and last things on the part of the scientific establishment. The anything for a buck came out in the embryonic stem cell research controversy. They begged the moral questions and demanded that the government drop a money bomb on their research. Turned out that they didn’t have to play Alexander and other paths were in fact better. But even infidels like Mary Shelley realized that scientists were inclined to make a Faustian bargain. and create monsters in the process.

 

[grannymh]

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.

As my brother would say – what is this we business? Is there a mouse in my pocket? We were not cast out of Eden. Please use names of the individual and his spouse who were cast out of the garden so that people do not get more confused than they already are. Note: We are descendants of Adam and it is his human nature which is transmitted to us.

The so-called scientific truths can be quite successful in intimidating Catholics to back down from their belief in God. Unfortunately, there are only a few people on CAF who have access to actual scientific research which indicates the possibility that the media or anti-doctrine writers are being used as a guide.

Those posters who have access to “evolution” displays in natural history museums will or should notice that the term Homo (man) is not the same as the Catholic definition of a human person.

In addition, as far as I can tell, many, not all, people do not realize that the first three chapters of Genesis are essentially different from the other 47 chapters of Genesis and the rest of the OT.

The “Fall” of Adam should be used to understand current human nature; however, as far as I can tell, many, not all, Catholics are unaware of all that is involved.

I really do need a cup of tea.

 

[Robertanthony]

Maybe a cup of tea will help.

Did you get a chance to read the suggested Psalm 23? Or Isaiah 55?

Funny you should say that, I had mint herbal tea prior to logging back in. Regular tea I can’t stand the taste.

I understand why you would have me read Isaiah as it depicts in detail what Jesus went
through in his passion.

The other one I don’t understand how it connects to my “problem” with the Old Testament.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

The only death that Catholic teaching concerns itself with is of the spiritual variety. This statement is moot.

Because people were weak of faith.

Well I’m not about to discuss the complications of how man came to develop a soul. On the bright side, it’s elaborated well more than the fairy tale idea that we once lived in the “Golden Age of powerful gods and extraordinary heroes” (as that Disney movie put it).

I would very much doubt it. As evidenced from what I’ve seen in other news reports here (like that one about God not needed in the Big Bang), science hits dead ends once it starts getting more complicated. There’s just so many variables you can get wrong. You might as well hypothesize what would happen if time travel was possible.

Oh and I almost forgot, the whole Adam’s age thing?

Myth is full of numerical exaggerations too.

I thought you knew your Greek Mythology, the Golden Age and the Age of Heroes are two different time periods.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

If the God who supposedly inspired the author of the Book of Genesis to write that Adam lived 930 years , that it took 6 days for God to create the universe, that all of the animals contained on this Earth which can’t swim had to be in pairs on a ship built in a desert, that Adam was made from earth and one of his ribs was used to make Eve (if we found human fossils that were determined to have been those of Adam, would we find him missing a rib?) is the same God who inspired whichever council to proclaim as sure doctrine (that Catholics are mandated to believe) the real existence of Adam* and Eve*, am I justified in not being convinced? I’m sure nobody had a problem interpreting the Old Testament as a reliable history book up until science made it impossible. Science told the Catholic Church that the Book of Genesis especially could not be read as a believable account of how things unfolded. Now it’s allegorical, poetic, lyric, figurative, topical time because that’s the position science forced the Catholic Church to adopt. Science talks and the Church nods yes.

*The names may have been changed.

The Rib on a man grows back

 

[Robertanthony]

The Rib on a man grows back

For real? hahaha Thanks for the info.

 

[grannymh]

Funny you should say that, I had mint herbal tea prior to logging back in. Regular tea I can’t stand the taste.

I understand why you would have me read Isaiah as it depicts in detail what Jesus went
through in his passion.

The other one I don’t understand how it connects to my “problem” with the Old Testament.

Isaiah 55 was given to me as a penance in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I now highly recommend it.

I mean this in a respectful manner – the “problem” with the Old Testament is so convoluted that it would probably take a month of Sundays to unravel it. So I figured that Psalm 23 would comfort and console you in your courageous effort to see the light of day. It comforts me in the worst of times.

Perhaps that OT problem could be solved with the old tactic of “divide and conquer”.
Maybe one could start with the least problematic point. Or maybe just focus on the first three chapters of Genesis. But don’t get hung up on the six days or whatever.

Maybe one could view human origins not like that 46% but more from a logical point of view which can deal with both the material and spiritual aspects–science and Catholicism.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here is a good example of speaking two different languages or perhaps you are talking about one religion and I am talking about another religion.

You mean we haven’t?

If that is the idea of a Disney movie–it sure is clueless about Catholicism.

So are the literalists apparently.

Speaking about language. I can’t quite get my brain wrapped around the expression “literalists” as if there is some group of people. Would your literalists be similar to fundamentalism which is usually a separate movement away from Catholicism?

Indeed they are! Yet, they’re here infecting our ranks with their delusions of a mythical lost world. -_-

No problem. Adam’s age is not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

I know rite?

But alas, literalists would insist you believe otherwise lest you be an atheist.

No.
It was to fulfill the prophecies that God had in place, that all could look upon them and believe in Him.

I repeat: Because they were weak in faith.

I thought you knew your Greek Mythology, the Golden Age and the Age of Heroes are two different time periods.

I was quoting the Disney movie Hercules in jest.

Then again, not much difference between what was in that movie and the beliefs of the Bible literalists.

 

[RobbyS]

Maybe a cup of tea will help.

Did you get a chance to read the suggested Psalm 23? Or Isaiah 55?

The Church was using allegory long before the Scientific Revolution. Origen, the first major biblical scholar, but even the Jews use something similar.

 

[grannymh]

The Church was using allegory long before the Scientific Revolution. Origen, the first major biblical scholar, but even the Jews use something similar.

I am probably misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Are you talking about analogies which can be useful tools in teaching an existing Catholic doctrine?

Or are you alluding to how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth in regard to Divine Revelation?

In any case, Catholic doctrines are not in the same category as allegory. The Catholic Church bases it teaching on real events not on allegories.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed they are! Yet, they’re here infecting our ranks with their delusions of a mythical lost world. -_-

Is this “mythical lost world” a cross-over from popular fantasy? In that case, ignore it as it cannot change Catholic doctrine.

I repeat: Because they were weak in faith.

Obviously, Jesus has multiple reasons for His actions. I pointed that out in a previous post.

I was quoting the Disney movie Hercules in jest.

Then again, not much difference between what was in that movie and the beliefs of the Bible literalists.

One suggestion is to listen intently to the words being said in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is not in jest.

The International Eucharistic Congress is held every four years. The next one will be in the Philippines in 2014. Another suggestion is to get involved with its preparation. Check with the diocese in Cebu. Most likely preparations, including special events between now and 2012, have already started. Get involved. Let the appropriate leaders know about the dangers of a fantasy world. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is important in the Philippines.

 

[vz71]

Obviously, Jesus has multiple reasons for His actions. I pointed that out in a previous post.

I know, you know.
But our friend is trying to get under my skin.