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

[grannymh]

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.

This dilemma is precisely the reason that the Catholic Church is more than a believer in God being a Divine Creator.

I sincerely wonder how many of that 46% look to Catholic doctrines as an authority regarding views, this or that, pertaining to the real origin of the current population.

Speaking of Scripture, I also wonder how many Catholics who may have been polled as part of that 46% have read and understood the subsequent history of Chapter 14 in the Gospel of John.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[grannymh]

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

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

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

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.

By the way, would a person who accepted Catholic doctrine – regardles if he or she was part of that 46% be considered a “literalist”?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

By the way, would a person who accepted Catholic doctrine – regardles if he or she was part of that 46% be considered a “literalist”?

Given the lack of necessity in believing the more fantastical elements of OT (which is held dear by the literalists), I very much doubt it.

 

[grannymh]

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.

There! Here’s your whole post.

I can understand how sin and evil relate to human origin. I can understand how some of the descendents of the two, sole, founders of humanity migrated away from their family home and became pagans, etc. And it is very easy for humans to imagine monsters lurking behind trees or under a four-year-old’s bed. Yet, all of this does not directly impact how the human species originated as taught by Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Maybe I should find some literalists – they sound fascinating.

However, when it comes to a Catholic understanding of human origin as described in the first three chapters of Genesis, there are Catholic doctrines which sort out real events from those that need figurative language. Why should I reinvent the wheel?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I can understand how sin and evil relate to human origin. I can understand how some of the descendents of the two, sole, founders of humanity migrated away from their family home and became pagans, etc. And it is very easy for humans to imagine monsters lurking behind trees or under a four-year-old’s bed. Yet, all of this does not directly impact how the human species originated as taught by Catholicism.

Yep, so why do literalists insist on the monsters being real? Why do they insist on the unimportant details? The answer: They’re just sad. Sad that the world found in their little storybook bibles is but a fairy tale.

 

[grannymh]

Given the lack of necessity in believing the more fantastical elements of OT (which is held dear by the literalists), I very much doubt it.

Did I miss the announcement?

Where did the more fastastical elements of the OT appear in the poll?

Dang, I already have enough trouble with human origins and that amazing 46%

 

[grannymh]

Yep, so why do literalists insist on the monsters being real? Why do they insist on the unimportant details? The answer: They’re just sad. Sad that the world found in their little storybook bibles is but a fairy tale.

I don’t know why literalists insist on the monsters being real. Maybe that is due to little storybook bibles.

Personally, I consider Catholic doctrines the better way to understand human origin which includes the fact that God calls each person to share in His divine life. This sharing can be equated with eternal happiness.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Did I miss the announcement?

Where did the more fastastical elements of the OT appear in the poll?

Dang, I already have enough trouble with human origins and that amazing 46%

I’m sure they were mentioned because literalists inevitably have to believe in that mess.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Lost Wanderer forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Given the lack of necessity in believing the more fantastical elements of OT (which is held dear by the literalists), I very much doubt it.

From granny’s post 654
Did I miss the announcement?
Where did the more fastastical elements of the OT appear in the poll?
Dang, I already have enough trouble with human origins and that amazing 46%

The words, now in bold, are the center of the question.

I’m sure they were mentioned because literalists inevitably have to believe in that mess.

Linked article in OP
gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, having an unlisted landline number, and being cell phone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the age 18+ non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

 

[grannymh]

From the linked article
gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

"The Most Religious Americans Are Most Likely to Be Creationists
Gallup’s question wording explicitly frames the three alternatives in terms of God’s involvement in the process of human development, making it less than surprising to find that the more religious the American, the more likely he or she is to choose the creationist viewpoint."

While in itself, the Gallup poll makes headlines, it does not factor in the Catholic approach to the first three Chapters of Genesis. The evidence in the poll, that is the materials and methods used, do not warrant the very broad conclusion “The Most Relgous Americans Are Most Likely to Be Creationists.” I realize that the words “most likely” are intended to cover difficulties which may pop up when one tries to figure out what makes an American really religious beyond what is considered in the poll. Would there be addtions to the religious meaning if that American happens to be a Catholic who is well versed in Catholic doctrines when it comes to the material domain of science and the spiritual domain of faith in God?

For example, the key statement, number 3 which was shortened in the “results”, includes the figure 10,000 years. This estimate is not part of Catholic doctrines on creation. Also, the words “the process of human development” sounds general; however, a Catholic could possibly question it because God’s creation of the spiritual soul at conception is instantaneous not developed.

While in itself, the Gallup poll is interesting, my personal opinion is that it avoids some key Catholic issues.

 

[oyaji]

They’re just sad. Sad that the world found in their little storybook bibles is but a fairy tale.

Which story would that be oh enlightened one.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

While in itself, the Gallup poll is interesting, my personal opinion is that it avoids some key Catholic issues.

Ya think!? That’s pretty much what I mean with creationism leading to a literalist viewpoint. It takes in that which is unnecessary for Catholic doctrine.

Which story would that be oh enlightened one.

Wake me up when you fish Leviathan out of the water. Then we’ll talk.

 

[grannymh]

Ya think!? That’s pretty much what I mean with creationism leading to a literalist viewpoint. It takes in that which is unnecessary for Catholic doctrine.

What is necessary for Catholic doctrine on human origins is that all humans descended from one, true, sole, real human couple lovingly known as the biblical Adam and Eve. These two people were specifically called by God to have eternal happiness through the sharing in God’s life. As direct descendants of Adam, all humanity, including you and me, are also invited by God to the same eternal joy.

 

[vz71]

Wake me up when you fish Leviathan out of the water. Then we’ll talk.

Chapter and verse?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Chapter and verse?

Book of Job, remember?

 

[oyaji]

I will try again LW. Which story from Genesis is a fairy tale?

 

[vz71]

Book of Job, remember?

No, I don’t.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I will try again LW. Which story from Genesis is a fairy tale?

You can start with the Ark.

And while you’re at it, you can make the case for Exodus with the pagans turning water into blood too.

Oh and I’ll need evidence of Behemoth from the Book of Job alongside Leviathan.

I’ve been looking for more fairy tales to deconstruct.

No, I don’t.

Chapter and verse please.

Job Chapter 40:25 - 41:26

Yeah. Sure. Find me a monster like that.

(Preferably when it’s trashing a city or wasting a couple of battleships. )