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

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

You’re chopping up my statement which is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Review my whole post before you start dicing up other people’s just so you could respond.

Or maybe God dealt with the Hebrews in the way which they would be able to understand…

Again, that viewpoint depicts God as an inconsistent God who toys with the cosmos just so He could get what He wants.

… 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…

This is not the literalist viewpoint. You cannot give respect to literalism when you’re now on the slope of saying that the way the author’s write is not in accordance to modern sensibilities. Simply put, you’re leaning towards the view of metaphors and hyperbole, the very viewpoint that literalists shun.

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.

To say that God acts differently across those ‘different stages’ IS leaning towards heresy. God is consistent. His nature is unchanging. That is core Catholic doctrine. That is in direct contrast to the literalist viewpoint you espouse that insists that God changed the nature of the world in response to the ‘maturity’ of mankind’s development.

 

[Robertanthony]

To say that God acts differently across those ‘different stages’ IS leaning towards heresy. God is consistent. His nature is unchanging. That is core Catholic doctrine. That is in direct contrast to the literalist viewpoint you espouse that insists that God changed the nature of the world in response to the ‘maturity’ of mankind’s development.

Matthew 19:8. God’s nature is unchanging but his ways of dealing with us are (changing). Do you believe that everything contained in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally? Simple question: do you believe, in an actual first human couple as depicted in Genesis and as taught by the CC? If Adam and Eve are to be taken literally (i.e. they really existed), is it possible that many other accounts (or some element of these accounts) in the OT can also be taken literally?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Matthew 19:8. God’s nature is unchanging but his ways of dealing with us are.

It’s only logical if the way a being changes its way of interaction, then, by default, that being is not unchanging. It is more logically consistent to say that mankind’s perception of God is what has been changing. Unfortunately, that means doing away with a lot of what literalists hold dear (and, coincidentally, what a lot of delusional fantasy escapists hold dear as well).

Do you believe that everything contained in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally? Simple question: do you believe, in an actual first human couple as depicted in Genesis and as taught by the CC? If Adam and Eve are to be taken literally (i.e. they really existed), is it possible that many other accounts (or some element of these accounts) in the OT can also be taken literally?

No, just because Adam and Even are literal, doesn’t everything else could’ve been literal. That’s not how logic works. Science is not necessarily opposed to the idea that all the world’s population could be traced back to a single ancestor.

It is opposed to the idea of a giant sea serpent with a hide impervious to steel blades and breathes great fire.

 

[Robertanthony]

It’s only logical if the way a being changes its way of interaction, then, by default, that being is not unchanging. It is more logically consistent to say that mankind’s perception of God is what has been changing. Unfortunately, that means doing away with a lot of what literalists hold dear (and, coincidentally, what a lot of delusional fantasy escapists hold dear as well).

Mosaic law allowed divorce because God saw it fit that it be so, Jesus said he came to perfect the mosaic law, and divorce was no longer permitted. There is nothing about this example that has to do with perception, it’s just a fact that God allowed something for as long as he saw fit and put an end to it when he knew it was the right time to do so.

No, just because Adam and Even are literal, doesn’t everything else could’ve been literal. That’s not how logic works. Science is not necessarily opposed to the idea that all the world’s population could be traced back to a single ancestor.
Then, apart from what the CCC clearly and authoritatively teaches how do you determine what’s factually accurate from what is not real? What’s your method?
It is opposed to the idea of a giant sea serpent with a hide impervious to steel blades and breathes great fire.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Mosaic law allowed divorce because God saw it fit that it be so, Jesus said he came to perfect the mosaic law, and divorce was no longer permitted. There is nothing about this example that has to do with perception, it’s just a fact that God allowed something for as long as he saw fit and put an end to it when he knew it was the right time to do so.

God? Who said it was God? My Bible says Moses allowed it, not God. Hence, my point and also proves my point about how the literalist view challenges the idea that God is unchanging.

Then, apart from what the CCC clearly and authoritatively teaches how do you determine what’s factually accurate from what is not real? What’s your method?

Simple. Look at the evidence. Do you see any for a giant land monster called Behemoth? Do you see any for river water literally transmuting into a horde of frogs?

I certainly don’t because if such things were true, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing. I’d be out there hunting monsters like that down and helping scientists find a way to weaponize the plagues that the Egyptians managed to replicate (minus recourse to demons posing as pagan gods).

 

[Robertanthony]

God? Who said it was God? My Bible says Moses allowed it, not God. Hence, my point and also proves my point about how the literalist view challenges the idea that God is unchanging.

You really think that Moses could have included provisions in his law that God would have disagreed with?

There was also a question for you that got muddled in the mess I made with my last post.
Then, apart from what the CCC clearly and authoritatively teaches how do you determine what’s factually accurate from what is not real? What’s your method?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You really think that Moses could have included provisions in his law that God would have disagreed with?

Why not? Moses was only human. Much of the OT could still be riddled with metaphors and the errors of human exaggeration.

 

[Robertanthony]

Why not? Moses was only human. Much of the OT could still be riddled with metaphors and the errors of human exaggeration.

In Numbers, God orders Moses to speak to the rock and that water would flow from it. Instead Moses struck it, and thus disobeyed God. God punished Moses by not allowing him to reach the promised land for this small detail (striking the rock instead of speaking to it as God had ordered). Don’t you think that if Moses had included in his law something that God disagreed with, he would have found a way to let Moses know (i.e. strike him dead or otherwise).

What about my 2nd question.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In Numbers, God orders Moses to speak to the rock and that water would flow from it. Instead Moses struck it, and thus disobeyed God. God punished Moses by not allowing him to reach the promised land for this small detail (striking the rock instead of speaking to it as God had ordered). Don’t you think that if Moses had included in his law something that God disagreed with, he would have found a way to let Moses know (i.e. strike him dead or otherwise).

What makes you think God didn’t? What makes you think that ‘striking him dead’ is the only consequence which God would inflict to let him know? What makes you think that Moses would even have this event recorded? It’s bad enough that this little bit of embarrassment on his part would be forever remembered in the recorded history of his people. It’s not so much of a stretch to believe he wouldn’t mention similar mistakes.

What about my 2nd question.

Already answered it a while ago. points up

 

[Robertanthony]

What makes you think God didn’t? What makes you think that ‘striking him dead’ is the only consequence which God would inflict to let him know? What makes you think that Moses would even have this event recorded? It’s bad enough that this little bit of embarrassment on his part would be forever remembered in the recorded history of his people. It’s not so much of a stretch to believe he wouldn’t mention similar mistake.

Whateve method of dissuasion God used or might have used, I don’t know, but is it reasonable knowing how Moses was punished for what seems to me like a minor disobedience, if even that, that God would have let the Mosaic law subsist for centuries whereby one major element of it (divorce) was contrary to his (God’s ) will? It’s close to 1 am here, I,m logging off and will reply to you later on in the day. Good night.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Whateve method of dissuasion God used or might have used, I don’t know, but is it reasonable knowing how Moses was punished for what seems to me like a minor disobedience, if even that, that God would have let the Mosaic law subsist for centuries whereby one major element of it (divorce) was contrary to his (God’s ) will?

But that’s the thing, you don’t know if God actually DID have something to say about Mosaic law being in error. Why else would you think the Bible specified Moses and not God? In fact, we Catholics all know that the Bible isn’t even the end-all for our theology because we know that there are things in it that aren’t mentioned very clearly.

Parts of the OT remain suspect of human error. It’s the divinely inspired Word of God but the writers weren’t necessarily divine.

 

[St_Francis]

You’re chopping up my statement which is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Review my whole post before you start dicing up other people’s just so you could respond.

No, it’s not. I asked you about Church teaching. I responded to the part where you talked about what the Church says.

[quoye]This is not the literalist viewpoint. You cannot give respect to literalism when you’re now on the slope of saying that the way the author’s write is not in accordance to modern sensibilities. Simply put, you’re leaning towards the view of metaphors and hyperbole, the very viewpoint that literalists shun.
I never said I hold the literalist viewpoint.

[quoteTo say that God acts differently across those ‘different stages’ IS leaning towards heresy. God is consistent. His nature is unchanging. That is core Catholic doctrine. That is in direct contrast to the literalist viewpoint you espouse that insists that God changed the nature of the world in response to the ‘maturity’ of mankind’s development.
[/QUOTE]
I never said God changed the nature of the world; I said God treats us differently at different times. Does the fact a parent forbids a 2-year-old to cross the street alone but permits that same child to cross alone several years later prove the parent to be inconsistent?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No, it’s not. I asked you about Church teaching. I responded to the part where you talked about what the Church says.

You snipped my quote to include only the first phrase. Read it as a whole and stop lying through your teeth.

I never said I hold the literalist viewpoint.

But you respect it and trivialize the theological implications it may have on Catholic theology if it were true.

I never said God changed the nature of the world;

Literalists would have you believe otherwise (as demonstrated by Not Sure).

I said God treats us differently at different times. Does the fact a parent forbids a 2-year-old to cross the street alone but permits that same child to cross alone several years later prove the parent to be inconsistent?

Indeed it does! Again, core Catholic teaching is that God is unchanging. Nothing can change the nature of God, not even the ‘stages of mankind’s development.’

On the other hand, should a parent say no because they don’t know how to cross safely, the only thing the child will hear is the word ‘no’. They will not understand the reasons for saying no because they’re not developed enough. They will only hear no. Hence, it’s an issue of perception changing over time.

 

[St_Francis]

You snipped my quote to include only the first phrase. Read it as a whole and stop lying through your teeth.

It’s been a very interesting conversation, but perhaps this would be a good point at which to end it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It’s been a very interesting conversation, but perhaps this would be a good point at which to end it.

You said:

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.

When the whole of my statement actually says:

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.

 

[grannymh]

No, just because Adam and Even are literal, doesn’t everything else could’ve been literal. That’s not how logic works. Science is not necessarily opposed to the idea that all the world’s population could be traced back to a single ancestor.

Adam and Eve are unique as the sole founders of humankind.

 

[grannymh]

God? Who said it was God? My Bible says Moses allowed it, not God. Hence, my point and also proves my point about how the literalist view challenges the idea that God is unchanging.

Simple. Look at the evidence. Do you see any for a giant land monster called Behemoth? Do you see any for river water literally transmuting into a horde of frogs?

I certainly don’t because if such things were true, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing. I’d be out there hunting monsters like that down and helping scientists find a way to weaponize the plagues that the Egyptians managed to replicate (minus recourse to demons posing as pagan gods).

Monsters, real or imaginary, did not begin the human species.

 

[grannymh]

You really think that Moses could have included provisions in his law that God would have disagreed with?

There was also a question for you that got muddled in the mess I made with my last post.
Then, apart from what the CCC clearly and authoritatively teaches how do you determine what’s factually accurate from what is not real? What’s your method?

The reality of God is not dependent on human affirmation or understanding.

 

[grannymh]

Why not? Moses was only human. Much of the OT could still be riddled with metaphors and the errors of human exaggeration.

Moses, like all human persons, descended from the two, sole parents of all humanity.

 

[grannymh]

What makes you think God didn’t? What makes you think that ‘striking him dead’ is the only consequence which God would inflict to let him know? What makes you think that Moses would even have this event recorded? It’s bad enough that this little bit of embarrassment on his part would be forever remembered in the recorded history of his people. It’s not so much of a stretch to believe he wouldn’t mention similar mistakes.

Already answered it a while ago. points up

The reality of Adam and Eve as real people does not depend on Moses doing this or that or not doing this or that.