Intelligent Design

[ricmat]

So we can believe that Christs miracles were real but just not those back in the OT? Is that how it is? We cannot question Christ but we can play with the OT?

Hello Zundrah. Co-incidentally, I just bought an Oxford Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Edition. There is a “readers guide” at the beginning, and frankly, I can’t believe what I’m reading. The writers seem to want to tear down and demolish every aspect of believability in the OT. They say that all the stories of the OT were fabrications based on previously existing myths, which were assembled hundreds or thousands of years after the fact to justify present circumstances. The plagues of Egypt - well, after all, Egypt was always having plagues. Nothing special there. They go out of their way to prop up the absence of evidence, and the evidence which does exist is explained away. Etc. Etc. The authors seem to be more interested in singing glory and praise to their own scholarship, their “objectivity”, their “debunking” of myths which have enslaved people for thousands of years. They should be ashamed of themselves. This readers guide is like an anti-bible glued to the front of a real bible.

I would have expected some concession of the form - “even though the originators of some of these writings may have been pagans from previous generations, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was working through them as well as the Hebrew authors, so the works themselves are inspired…” but I haven’t found anything like that yet.

So far as your question about where do we draw the line…it the OT is a total fabrication, then how can the NT be any good as well? I’m afraid to go to the NT section of the readers guide based on the OT sections.

I don’t know who those authors are, but I think they will have much to answer for. We see here on CAF “Catholic Theologians” who subscribe to the "it is all myth because our scientific analyses have so determined. " point of view. God help us and our Church.

 

[Zundrah]

Hello Zundrah. Co-incidentally, I just bought an Oxford Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Edition. There is a “readers guide” at the beginning, and frankly, I can’t believe what I’m reading. The writers seem to want to tear down and demolish every aspect of believability in the OT. They say that all the stories of the OT were fabrications based on previously existing myths, which were assembled hundreds or thousands of years after the fact to justify present circumstances. The plagues of Egypt - well, after all, Egypt was always having plagues. Nothing special there. They go out of their way to prop up the absence of evidence, and the evidence which does exist is explained away. Etc. Etc. The authors seem to be more interested in singing glory and praise to their own scholarship, their “objectivity”, their “debunking” of myths which have enslaved people for thousands of years. They should be ashamed of themselves. This readers guide is like an anti-bible glued to the front of a real bible.

I would have expected some concession of the form - “even though the originators of some of these writings may have been pagans from previous generations, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was working through them as well as the Hebrew authors, so the works themselves are inspired…” but I haven’t found anything like that yet.

So far as your question about where do we draw the line…it the OT is a total fabrication, then how can the NT be any good as well? I’m afraid to go to the NT section of the readers guide based on the OT sections.

I don’t know who those authors are, but I think they will have much to answer for. We see here on CAF “Catholic Theologians” who subscribe to the "it is all myth because our scientific analyses have so determined. " point of view. God help us and our Church.

This is sadly precisely what I have been trying to say all along! The church today believes that the bible is mythical???

 

[Zundrah]

How did you get that? Miracles in the OT were real events.

What are we arguing about?

…sorry if I sound aggressive, but there are clergy and scholars who really do teach us that the events in the bible could have been expressions and not real actual events.

 

[buffalo]

…sorry if I sound aggressive, but there are clergy and scholars who really do teach us that the events in the bible could have been expressions and not real actual events.

Agreed, we have some resident modernist theologians on this very thread. It is a good thing their musings do not rise to Magisterial teachings.

 

[cassini]

Thank the Lord… I also believe in every word of God in our priceless bibles to be undoubtly true and accurate. He is Lord of all. People have tried to answer their own questions because the bible doesn’t suit their imagination I guess. I remember when I was an athiest I use to have to believe science and sadly that made me feel like I was just absolutely nothing with no meaning purpose or aim. Thankfully the world is God and God is the world. In the beginning there was the word and the word was with God. Thankfully now the word is with us too!

According to science we are a mistake.

Zundra, you have made my day, nay, my week, nay my year on CA forum. Like St Paul, you can now do great work for Him. You have no idea how comforting your post is to my long life faith coming as it does from one plucked from the clutches of oblivion by God and His mother Mary.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Ricmat and Zundrah -

I enjoy the older editions of my Holy Bible. The forwards and introductions do support divine revelation and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think that Science was not put here to bash God nor His Holy Bible, but to learn about the glories of His Creation and how to serve mankind. This rouge, or renegade, or Anti-Christ ‘science’ has strayed from it’s purpose. “Education”, either without or against God, has little truth. These persecutions will pass. They are merely propaganda of the postmodern talking heads…or deceits of the Devil.

You may rest assured that both OT and NT miracles were real events. God still does miracles to this very day. These rouge ‘scientists’ are ready and able to shred any evidence we offer, or to totally reject it as irrevelant. (I can’t find a spell check. Oh, well.) They would do better to remember that religion was the cradle of science.

Science is so very young, just a few centuries of organized and tabulated data. Religion, on the other hand, has enduring and eternal truths to teach and has done so for thousands of years. Science and its scientists would do better to respect their religious elder, rather than bash, shred nor gainsay it.

God is love,
Don

 

[Zundrah]

Zundra, you have made my day, nay, my week, nay my year on CA forum. Like St Paul, you can now do great work for Him. You have no idea how comforting your post is to my long life faith coming as it does from one plucked from the clutches of oblivion by God and His mother Mary.

My friend, the words you find in your Holy book are the words of God. It is as very simple as that to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Anyone who believes otherwise is being a Judas.

God bless, keep the wolves away.

xxXx zundrah xXxx

 

[Zundrah]

Hi, Ricmat and Zundrah -

I enjoy the older editions of my Holy Bible. The forwards and introductions do support divine revelation and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think that Science was not put here to bash God nor His Holy Bible, but to learn about the glories of His Creation and how to serve mankind. This rouge, or renegade, or Anti-Christ ‘science’ has strayed from it’s purpose. “Education”, either without or against God, has little truth. These persecutions will pass. They are merely propaganda of the postmodern talking heads…or deceits of the Devil.

You may rest assured that both OT and NT miracles were real events. God still does miracles to this very day. These rouge ‘scientists’ are ready and able to shred any evidence we offer, or to totally reject it as irrelavent. (I can’t find a spell check. Oh, well.) They would do better to remember that religion was the cradle of science.

Science is so very young, just a few centuries of organized and tabulated data. Religion, on the other hand, has enduring and eternal truths to teach and has done so for thousands of years. Science and its scientists would do better to respect their religious elder, rather than bash, shred nor gainsay it.

God is love,
Don

I don’t think I can put this a better way my self.

 

[tjm190]

=
I think that Science was not put here to bash God nor His Holy Bible, but to learn about the glories of His Creation and how to serve mankind. This rouge, or renegade, or Anti-Christ ‘science’ has strayed from it’s purpose. “Education”, either without or against God, has little truth. These persecutions will pass. They are merely propaganda of the postmodern talking heads…or deceits of the Devil.

You may rest assured that both OT and NT miracles were real events. God still does miracles to this very day. These rouge ‘scientists’ are ready and able to shred any evidence we offer, or to totally reject it as irrevelant. (I can’t find a spell check. Oh, well.) They would do better to remember that religion was the cradle of science.

Science is so very young, just a few centuries of organized and tabulated data. Religion, on the other hand, has enduring and eternal truths to teach and has done so for thousands of years. Science and its scientists would do better to respect their religious elder, rather than bash, shred nor gainsay it.

God is love,
Don

So… when scientists conclude that a world wide flood in recent history is outside the realm of possibility, what course of action would you suggest?

(My browser has spell check built in )

 

[buffalo]

So… when scientists conclude that a world wide flood in recent history is outside the realm of possibility, what course of action would you suggest?

(My browser has spell check built in )

Search harder. Look outside the box.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Zundrah -

Comparing my number of posts with your number of posts, I am quite honored by what you just wrote to me. Thank you. You have just made my day and maybe my whole week.

God is love,
Don

 

[tjm190]

Search harder. Look outside the box.

Oh please- ‘if they keep looking, they’ll see I’m right eventually- trust me’ is not a principle upon which science operates.

 

[buffalo]

Oh please- ‘if they keep looking, they’ll see I’m right eventually- trust me’ is not a principle upon which science operates.

Oh please - give up because I am correct right now. Trust me that my a priori view of unifromatarianism is right.

 

[ricmat]

Hi, Ricmat and Zundrah -

I enjoy the older editions of my Holy Bible. The forwards and introductions do support divine revelation and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think that Science was not put here to bash God nor His Holy Bible, but to learn about the glories of His Creation and how to serve mankind. This rouge, or renegade, or Anti-Christ ‘science’ has strayed from it’s purpose. “Education”, either without or against God, has little truth. These persecutions will pass. They are merely propaganda of the postmodern talking heads…or deceits of the Devil.

You may rest assured that both OT and NT miracles were real events. God still does miracles to this very day. These rouge ‘scientists’ are ready and able to shred any evidence we offer, or to totally reject it as irrevelant. (I can’t find a spell check. Oh, well.) They would do better to remember that religion was the cradle of science.

Science is so very young, just a few centuries of organized and tabulated data. Religion, on the other hand, has enduring and eternal truths to teach and has done so for thousands of years. Science and its scientists would do better to respect their religious elder, rather than bash, shred nor gainsay it.

God is love,
Don

Amen, Brother!

 

[donsnow]

So… when scientists conclude that a world wide flood in recent history is outside the realm of possibility, what course of action would you suggest?

(My browser has spell check built in )

Hi, Tim190 -

I have yet to find spell check on this window, lucky you.

My course of action is to question said scientist. I’ve heard it’s impossible to prove a negative and scientists like proof. Saying a global deluge is “…outside the realm of possibility,…”, when, “with God all things are possible”, that puts science at odds with religion. It also leaves the person saying there wasn’t a global deluge with a statement which can’t be proven.
Whatever happened to “If you can’t prove it, don’t say[write]it?” being as much sauce for the goose as for the gander, heh?

God is love,
Don

 

[ricmat]

Oh please- ‘if they keep looking, they’ll see I’m right eventually- trust me’ is not a principle upon which science operates.

Rather, looking outside the box is not a principle upon which science (currently) operates.

 

[donsnow]

Amen, Brother!

Thanks for that reinforcement.

God is love,
Don

 

[tjm190]

Hi, Tim190 -

I have yet to find spell check on this window, lucky you.

My course of action is to question said scientist. I’ve heard it’s impossible to prove a negative and scientists like proof. Saying a global deluge is “…outside the realm of possibility,…”, when, “with God all things are possible”, that puts science at odds with religion. It also leaves the person saying there wasn’t a global deluge with a statement which can’t be proven.
Whatever happened to “If you can’t prove it, don’t say[write]it?” being as much sauce for the goose as for the gander, heh?

God is love,
Don

Of course proving a negative is impossible- For example, you can’t prove that it’s impossible for a human being to live to the ripe old age of 2149. But if I told you I knew someone who had done so, you would be wise to enlighten me as to the basics of human biology.

For example, if someone were to tell me that a global flood took place and all of the currently surviving species were stored on an ark, I might be wise to ask how salt water species of fish survived. Or why the rapid temperature shifts in water didn’t kill of other species. And what kind of ark can support creatures from so many climate zones?

That sorta thing.

 

[tjm190]

Rather, looking outside the box is not a principle upon which science (currently) operates.

And what box is that? The empirical box?

 

[buffalo]

Of course proving a negative is impossible- For example, you can’t prove that it’s impossible for a human being to live to the ripe old age of 2149. But if I told you I knew someone who had done so, you would be wise to enlighten me as to the basics of human biology.

For example, if someone were to tell me that a global flood took place and all of the currently surviving species were stored on an ark, I might be wise to ask how salt water species of fish survived. Or why the rapid temperature shifts in water didn’t kill of other species. And what kind of ark can support creatures from so many climate zones?

That sorta thing.

Except you are equating the modern classification of species with the number of genetic kinds needed.