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

[Not_Sure_1]

On the contrary. There are elements that look like they’ve been borrowed from Babylonian creation stories and the concept of man molded out of dirt and clay is a trope shared by several other ancient cultures.

Well authentic science cannot physiologically support the existence of a sea monster with an impenetrable steel hide and intense fire breath.

How is literalism equally valid when you can’t even transmute water into fish? This is the 21st century, not Ancient Greece where people though that flies were born of dead flesh.

The fact is that truth need not be truth about material reality.

They copied us, we did not copy them. Commonalities exist because the story of Genesis really happened, and as people drifted further from God, their stories became corrupted. Ours were preserved.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Not really. I just know that supernatural phenomenon doesn’t happen so often (unlike in fantasy and mythology where they’re actually the norm).

God rarely performs miracles and mankind exaggerates anything that looks like divine intervention. Put those two together and you get a stronger case for science ruling the cosmos.

Yep and I don’t wanna hear it. Why? Because you’re wrong. Science says you’re wrong. Your fantasy doesn’t exist so stop filling people’s heads with delusions and false hopes.

That doesn’t mean God will answer her prayer. Miracles wouldn’t be miracles if they always happened. Why do you think that is? Answer: Because of the laws in place. Only God knows the full extent that structures our universe. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge how much we understand and face the facts even when our personal feelings wish to blind us.

That’s the difference between you and me. I take it further than you. I know that God is so mighty that He doesn’t need to do much to prove it. That’s another reason why miracles don’t happen so often. The person who relies too much on such physical signs and wonders is the man of the weaker faith.

The person who needs to know the world was once indeed the Chrisian version of God of War is the one with the weakest faith.

Thanks for posing for Atheist Strawman #4: God is an oppressive authority figure.

Like I said, you really need to see the error of making God out as Big Daddy. Zeus and Odin were the same too. (Heck, the Marvel version Odin actually does act like that! LOL!)

That was more to drive my point. The fact is, I have both personal and logical reasons to say that you need to dispense with the fantasy. You think I’m alone? I represent the views of countless others who have to live bitterly in accordance to a world that doesn’t allow mutant superheroes and mystical adventures. We’re grounded in reality but we hate it.

Now all of a sudden you guys show up and start spreading nonsense about how the world is the evangelical version of that fantasy. Your views are inherently demeaning towards our struggle because you make it sound like it shows that there’s no point in grounding ourselves in that reality.

No but you equate false gods with demons. That counts.

This only goes to show that you have an even poorer understanding (and appreciation) of what Scripture is. We do not rely on a literal creation account or a literal Ten Plagues in order believe. The truths of those stories do not lie in them being literally true or false. Their truth transcends the trivial nitpickings of science.

Look at Aesop’s fables. I don’t need to know if animals can really talk or if a turtle can actually be faster than a hare. I simply need to see the moral of the story (such as never underestimate and look down on the skills of others).

For the umpteenth time, I do not see God as restricted. I see God as UNWILLING to break these laws. We all know He can but there’s a stronger case (both backed by science and Church teaching) that He clearly doesn’t want to all the time.

God is challenged every day by many non-believers who don’t believe in His omnipotence. Why doesn’t He smite all of them? Why doesn’t He smite the likes of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins? He used to do so in the OT… or did He really?

No but you believe that pagans worshiped demons posing as their false gods. Again, that counts.

God came to Moses as a friggin’, burnin’, bush.

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was an actual person.

So let’s see now… unseen God that comes in the form of an inanimate object versus… God Himself come down to walk among us.

I leave you to figure out the rest.

It’s the fact that such a discussion is even happening that a fourth boy, the one with no father, finds the concept of having one to be completely ridiculous.

These parodies are the result of YOUR literalist viewpoints. Obviously the atheists are wrong about these strawmen but so are YOU because folks like YOU are posing for them!

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
–Psalm 96:5

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

They copied us, we did not copy them. Commonalities exist because the story of Genesis really happened, and as people drifted further from God, their stories became corrupted. Ours were preserved.

Uh-huh. Sure. Wake me up when Leviathan re-emerges from the sea. I need to know when I can sign up to be monster hunter so the scientists can pay me for samples. (Oh yeah and how to weaponize the results of their research too, yeah.)

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
–Psalm 96:5

Thanks for proving my point.

“My god is bigger than your god! Your gods are demons! Nyanyanyanyanyanya!”

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As I said, its an open issue - I know for a fact that you guys aren’t going to resolve it because neither of you have all of the facts - nor do I, or anyone else as is most likely.

Don’t have all the facts? As far as I’m concerned, the law of gravity and the laws governing the molecular structure of all matter are the only facts you’ll need to prove that Bible literalism is a fairy tale.

 

[grannymh]

Do you believe Adam and Eve had parents? Did they gestate for 9 months, were they born from a womb? Were they children then teenagers then adults? What were their parents like? Did they look rather human-like but not have a spiritual soul? Or…?

Or…? did God call Adam and Eve’s descendants to eternal happiness by sharing in His divine life? Which is the real issue?

For those who are non-theists, it is possible to demonstrate that there is some kind of spirituality in human nature. For example, when one looks at the posts which talk about God and other gods, one can reason that a recognition of the supernatural goes across the board from the beginning of human records to now. This recognition may not always be accurate; however, the ability to seek beyond the natural exists.

Some people consider religion as an attempt to communicate with the weather.

To put your question in the light of a creationist view of human as mentioned in the OP.

What you are asking for is the literal physical creation of the first two people. I do not know if creationist textbooks have the answers and I certainly do not have all the particulars, just the major items such as that Adam and Eve were capable of producing human offspring.

What I believe is more important than brown eyes versus blue eyes is the human nature which was transmitted to their descendants by propagation. This is where I believe Catholic teaching is very different than that of some other Christian faiths.

It is my observation from reading CAF posts that the real issue concerns a real God Who considers human descendants of Adam and Eve as being properly created so that we can share in the spiritual nature of God…in supernatural peace, happiness, and love.

 

[St_Francis]

We are not arging about whether creation occurred exactly as laid out in Genesis or whether God unfolded creation as the theistic evolutionists suggest. I am an agnostic on that point.

Lost Wanderer is trying to convince me that I am a loser bound for heresy because I believe that the events recounted in the OT are true.

@ Lost Wanderer & St. Francis:

I think you guys are too far on either side. If either of you had the truth in mind, you wouldn’t be needing to force your viewpoints on one another. FYI, nobody knows whether or not the creation story is meant to be complete fact or complete allegory.

The fact that two people are arguing, even passionately, does not mean that both are too far to the extreme. One could actually be correct and the other wrong.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

We are not arging about whether creation occurred exactly as laid out in Genesis or whether God unfolded creation as the theistic evolutionists suggest. I am an agnostic on that point.

Lost Wanderer is trying to convince me that I am a loser bound for heresy because I believe that the events recounted in the OT are true.

The fact that two people are arguing, even passionately, does not mean that both are too far to the extreme. One could actually be correct and the other wrong.

If anything, he is the one closest to heresy.

 

[St_Francis]

Don’t have all the facts? As far as I’m concerned, the law of gravity and the laws governing the molecular structure of all matter are the only facts you’ll need to prove that Bible literalism is a fairy tale.

I have to leave and lost the reply I was writing to you, but since you have said I am approaching error in my views and the only evidence you have provided is a wave in the direction of the CCC, I would like you to provide more specific information from the Church about the error of believing that the OT stories are true. Believing in moleclues and the law of gravity does not preclude believing in miracles.

Thanks

 

[Al_Moritz]

The problem is not with science. We all trust authentic science. It’s adherents of the anti-God evolutionary religion, posing as scientists, whom I distrust. Nobody has all the answers. To claim that one has the truth to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is arrogant and forcibly excluding these equally-valid creationist models is tyrrannical.

What makes you judge that creationist *) models are equally valid?

As a scientist (a biochemist) I would have to say that evolution is authentic and well-founded science, and that creationist models are not. Where I agree with you is that some scientists illicitly use evolution as a ‘scientific’ argument for atheistic naturalism. Yet here they overreach. Naturalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, and evolution is compatible with a God-centered view just as well as with an atheistic one. Atheistic evolutionism has nothing to do with the science of evolution proper. And the science of evolution is not intrinsically ‘evil’ but, on the contrary, points to us believers to the magnificent manner in which God decided to let His creation unfold. All truth, be it from divine revelation or from science, is to the glory of God.

While evolutionary biology is authentic and well-founded science, most of evolutionary psychology is not, in my view, but rather pop pseudo-science lacking in evidence. And of course, evolution cannot explain the emergence of the human mind which, while dependent on the brain, needs a rational immaterial soul for its functioning as well.

*) in the commonly used sense of being anti-evolution. In the sense of believing that the world was created by God, through Big Bang and physical as well as biological evolution, or otherwise, all of us believers are creationists.

 

[edwest2]

Did Jesus Christ raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, walk on water and calm the wind and waves with a verbal command? Yes or no? Did He rise bodily from the dead? Yes or no?

Without science.

Get it straight. I’m tired of the vagueness, the supposed confusion and the “we’ve got to find a scientific explanation, We’ve just gotta.”

The Church tells us through Pope Benedict that we can’t prove that theory so many are so concerned about.

Finally, miracles happen today. What? Pope John Paul II does not have a miracle attributed and confirmed?

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/14/pope-john-paul-sainthood

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

What makes you judge that creationist *) models are equally valid?

As a scientist (a biochemist) I would have to say that evolution is authentic and well-founded science, and that creationist models are not. Where I agree with you is that some scientists illicitly use evolution as a ‘scientific’ argument for atheistic naturalism. Yet here they overreach. Naturalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, and evolution is compatible with a God-centered view just as well as with an atheistic one. Atheistic evolutionism has nothing to do with the science of evolution proper. And the science of evolution is not intrinsically ‘evil’ but, on the contrary, points to us believers to the magnificent manner in which God decided to let His creation unfold. All truth, be it from divine revelation or from science, is to the glory of God.

While evolutionary biology is authentic and well-founded science, most of evolutionary psychology is not, in my view, but rather pop pseudo-science lacking in evidence. And of course, evolution cannot explain the emergence of the human mind which, while dependent on the brain, needs a rational immaterial soul for its functioning as well.

*) in the commonly used sense of being anti-evolution. In the sense of believing that the world was created by God, through Big Bang and physical as well as biological evolution, or otherwise, all of us believers are creationists.

The difficulty with current fossil finds is that scientists can call various extinct archaic beings human when they exhibit a human characteristic --not necessarily a non-material characteristic. In my humble opinion, creationism is an extreme counter to the scientific type of materialistic reasoning. I have been reading In the beginning… by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. His first homilies point to the fact that Creation, itself, needs to be understood from a Catholic perspective. I am still working on my comprehension of his words. However, it seems that the counter to both Creationism and improper application of the evolution model to human origin is to understand Creator/Creation in itself.

 

[Neildown]

Don’t have all the facts? As far as I’m concerned, the law of gravity and the laws governing the molecular structure of all matter are the only facts you’ll need to prove that Bible literalism is a fairy tale.

That in itself tells me how narrow-minded you are on this issue though. There’s no such thing as testable infinite life in the physical world (please correct me if I’m wrong), so why should one believe in an eternal, ever-living God, since one doesn’t have physical evidence for it?

Heck, our souls are what apparently make us special, and they’re being utilized in the physical world - how does one explain that away as far as the concept of complete separation of spirituality and physicality?

Oppositely, St. Francis’ view appears too open-minded. Granted, its normally a good quality, it isn’t one that’s going to get very far in this particular issue if used over-zealously.

Sane debate on this issue requires a balance between faith and logic, but neither of you appear to have it. That being said, (and remember me when it happens <3) neither of you are going to come to a definitive conclusion that isn’t based on your own hard-headed bias - no offense intended.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If anything, he is the one closest to heresy.

Says the guy who believes in a fairy tale God. The same kind of God which the CCC does not describe.

I think I’ll make a thread title now: “So it’s heresy to not believe in fairies and sea monsters?”

I have to leave and lost the reply I was writing to you, but since you have said I am approaching error in my views and the only evidence you have provided is a wave in the direction of the CCC, I would like you to provide more specific information from the Church about the error of believing that the OT stories are true.

It is enough that we are not required to believe in literal OT events plus the fact that the Church does not teach of a God who punishes and demands tribute from His children in the same manner as the pagans. Read the portions about the theology surrounding sin and its consequences. Follow this up with condemnations against superstition. Then, try to put them all together.

The ancient pagans simply believed their gods ruled them and toy with the world in any way they pleased. We mere mortals could only beseech them to take our side in our affairs with offerings and prayers. Like it or not, a literal OT describes that very same relationship. That can’t be helped when its writers were still too influenced by their pagan neighbors.

That in itself tells me how narrow-minded you are on this issue though. There’s no such thing as testable infinite life in the physical world (please correct me if I’m wrong), so why should one believe in an eternal, ever-living God, since one doesn’t have physical evidence for it?

You’re confusing one topic of discussion with another. The things you speak of are on the spiritual dimension. Of course, we all know that the physical realm isn’t all there is. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t defend the laws of the physical reality.

OT literalism deals with that same physical world. Hence, it’s fallacious because the laws of science do not support that silly fantasy realm where we good 'ol Christians are protected fromteh evil, magic-wielding deeemons.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Says the guy who believes in a fairy tale God. The same kind of God which the CCC does not describe.

I think I’ll make a thread title now: “So it’s heresy to not believe in fairies and sea monsters?”

It is enough that we are not required to believe in literal OT events plus the fact that the Church does not teach of a God who punishes and demands tribute from His children in the same manner as the pagans. Read the portions about the theology surrounding sin and its consequences. Follow this up with condemnations against superstition. Then, try to put them all together.

The ancient pagans simply believed their gods ruled them and toy with the world in any way they pleased. We mere mortals could only beseech them to take our side in our affairs with offerings and prayers. Like it or not, a literal OT describes that very same relationship. That can’t be helped when its writers were still too influenced by their pagan neighbors.

You’re confusing one topic of discussion with another. The things you speak of are on the spiritual dimension. Of course, we all know that the physical realm isn’t all there is. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t defend the laws of the physical reality.

OT literalism deals with that same physical world. Hence, it’s fallacious because the laws of science do not support that silly fantasy realm where we good 'ol Christians are protected fromteh evil, magic-wielding deeemons.

An evolutionary mindset is closer to heresy than a creationist mindset.
Literalism has never been heresy.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Says the guy who believes in a fairy tale God. The same kind of God which the CCC does not describe.

I think I’ll make a thread title now: “So it’s heresy to not believe in fairies and sea monsters?”

It is enough that we are not required to believe in literal OT events plus the fact that the Church does not teach of a God who punishes and demands tribute from His children in the same manner as the pagans. Read the portions about the theology surrounding sin and its consequences. Follow this up with condemnations against superstition. Then, try to put them all together.

The ancient pagans simply believed their gods ruled them and toy with the world in any way they pleased. We mere mortals could only beseech them to take our side in our affairs with offerings and prayers. Like it or not, a literal OT describes that very same relationship. That can’t be helped when its writers were still too influenced by their pagan neighbors.

You’re confusing one topic of discussion with another. The things you speak of are on the spiritual dimension. Of course, we all know that the physical realm isn’t all there is. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t defend the laws of the physical reality.

OT literalism deals with that same physical world. Hence, it’s fallacious because the laws of science do not support that silly fantasy realm where we good 'ol Christians are protected fromteh evil, magic-wielding deeemons.

You do not believe in demons. Jesus cast them out from poor souls. Remember the story of legion and the swine, the many lunatiks infected with demons.

 

[grannymh]

May I respectfully remind gentle readers that the Catholic Church is based on what is known as the Catholic Deposit of Faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Glossary, describes the Deposit of Faith as–"The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it propses for belief as being divinely revealed. (84; cf. 1202)

Please note that not every word of every chapter of every book in both the Old and New Testaments are automatically transformed into Catholic doctrines considered part of the Deposit of Faith. This is because the Catholic Church follows Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John.

In plain words, the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Not Sure,

I’m ‘not sure’ about the concept of ‘…closer to heresy…’ when the only position condemned by the Catholic Church is the Athestic model. The other way to say this is that the Church has not condemned God directed Evolution or Creationism.

God bless

An evolutionary mindset is closer to heresy than a creationist mindset.
Literalism has never been heresy.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

An evolutionary mindset is closer to heresy than a creationist mindset.
Literalism has never been heresy.

Considering the following post.

Please note that not every word of every chapter of every book in both the Old and New Testaments are automatically transformed into Catholic doctrines considered part of the Deposit of Faith. This is because the Catholic Church follows Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John.

A literalist view of the OT leads to a replica of ancient, pagan belief systems. Hence, history. As science continues to progress there will come a time when your literalist viewpoint ends up in the same pit as atheistic evolution.

You do not believe in demons. Jesus cast them out from poor souls. Remember the story of legion and the swine, the many lunatiks infected with demons.

Uh-huh. Believing in the unseen spiritual MUST mean I have to believe demons are just rearing to tear a rift in space and send their legions to our world like they did in Warcraft.

Oh and the only thing keeping us safe is a big bubble of reality because God wants to ‘keep us safe’.



Man, it’s no wonder Dawkins came up with the stupid Pink Unicorn argument. Way to pose for another strawman.

 

[St_Francis]

It is enough that we are not required to believe in literal OT events

Not being required does not mean being forbidden. You have said that I am approaching error by believing in the accounts of the OT. Now you say that all the Church says about the matter is that one is not required to believe.

…Their gods ruled them and toy with the world in any way they pleased. We mere mortals could only beseech them to take our side in our affairs with offerings and prayers. Like it or not, a literal OT describes that very same relationship. That can’t be helped when its writers were still too influenced by their pagan neighbors.

Or maybe God dealt with the Hebrews in the way which they would be able to understand, or maybe the Hebrews lacked the language to fully describe the difference, or maybe they simply assumed that the reader would also be Hebrew and have the cultural understanding to know the differences…

As a Catholic, I see God in the OT through a Catholic lens, so to speak. Perhaps a little example from another discussion would help: Joe says he doesn’t believe in God because if God is all-powerful and yet allows suffering, then He can’t be a-good.

Jack replies that if God is all-good and yet allows suffering, maybe suffering is not the evil we see it as… which, oddly enough, is indeed the case in Catholic theology.

I do not look at God in the OT and say, oh, boy, He’s so mean and oppressive! I take the view of those who say that humanity itself has gone through the stages of childhood, adolescence, and (maybe ) adulthood. God is God the Father, and we are His children. I figure that if God is all-powerful *and *all-good that there is a sense to what He did, and sometimes I can see it, and sometimes I can’t.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Not Sure,

I’m ‘not sure’ about the concept of ‘…closer to heresy…’ when the only position condemned by the Catholic Church is the Athestic model. The other way to say this is that the Church has not condemned God directed Evolution or Creationism.

God bless

It is important to recognize Catholicism’s second position on evolution which is currently held by the Catholic Church. This position addresses the point at which the evolution model intersects with the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. Simply put, the Catholic Church holds that Adam and Eve are the true, sole, human founders of humankind. The evolution position of polgenism, which is not acceptable, is that humanity evolved from groups of breeding subhumans over time.

Here is an interesting link on scientific polygenism…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9192971&postcount=175