V
- Status
D
DLC
Guest
It is not reliable as a dating method.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
That’s not necessarilly true. We cannot fathom the Trinity using pure reason-- and yet we were created in the image and likeness of God.
Some would use you’re own argument against us and say that God is simply mocking the very gift of reason that he bestowed upon us. They too would ask, why would God mock that which he created in his own image and likeness?
Can science demonstrate the Trinity?
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
Why is a measurement of Parent/Daughter ratios of radioactive elements superior to the revealed Word of God for determining the age of the earth? Lot’s of assumptions go into radioactive dating that may or may not be valid. Why was volcanic rock from the 1980’s eruption on Mt St Helens dated at 340,000 years?
answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
Deal with the history of death issue. Is death an intruder and an enemy or do you cheer at funerals since its just another step forward in the evolutionary progress of man? How can we have death supposedly millions of years before Adam’s sin? Why should Mary require according to Rome to be assumed into heaven if death is a positive thing or just the natural way and it was only a spiritual death in the garden? I’m interested in seeing a consistent presentation of Mary’s assumption and theistic evolution.
V
VociMike
Guest
You ask the wrong question. The equivalent question would be, why does science present us with countless pieces of evidence and theories which conclusively prove the non-exisence of the Trinity.
But of course, science presents us with no such thing. Science has nothing to say whatsoever about the Trinity. But it does have plenty to say about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. And unless God is mocking the very rationality he bestowed upon us, we cannot simply ignore that and call ourselves rational beings. Indeed, if we can know so little about the world, how can we know anything about God? Why should we be so sure of God’s supernatural revelation to us if we can be so mistaken about God’s natural revelation to us?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Some would look to the heliocentric/geoncentric debates of long aog to answer this question.
If it were only radioactive dating that set the standard, then I would agree with you. But it’s more than that. And there does indeed appear to be a convergence of scientific disciplines which do indeed point toward the universe itself being much older than the tradional figure of 10,000 to 6,000 years as espoused by some of the early fathers.
It should be noted that not all the early fathers were in agreement on this matter though. There does appear to be many notable early fathers who were simply undecided or else felt the universe was indeed older, And there are indeed a large list of notable Christians who are open to an older universe too.
answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
Me personally, I think death is indeed the final enemy. This is recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:26 with…
Others here seem to disagree with me though.
I am attempting to search for the answer to that question here. While I admit that I don’t know, I do think the most simple solution to this problem is that the devil’s rebellion may have happened more distantly into the earliest parts of the universe’s origin that we had previously considered.
John 8:44:
If the devil were indeed a murderer “from the beginning”, then, in this sense, Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God would have been a participation in the devil’s orginal sin long ago against God almighty.
While I’m sure that God can use even death for a good purpose (indeed, as you already know, if Adam were to reach out and participate in the tree of life, he would have been forever trapped in his sinful state just like the devil is) so much so that even death can become a blessing in disguise.
But I don’t think this is what God intended at first-- ie., it’s not that positive to begin with. It’s more like Moses permitting a divorce when the couple’s hearts are hardened. It was not the way God intended but he permitted it anyway. God seems to have allowed natural death to occur as a means of escaping their sinful lives.
The answer is simple: God has intended all of humanity to be saved from death. Unfortunately, not all people will be saved in this way. Nonetheless, Mary is indeed a preview of the Great Resurrection noted in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 that all faithful believers will participate in.
1 Thessalonians 4:17:
Consequently, I’m interested in seeing a consistent presentation of why Jesus’ had to die if he was totally free from sin and not subject to the same conditions that we live in.
Once you answer that question, you will probably also have your answer regarding Mary’s Assumption into Heaven too. She didn’t necessarilly die because of personal sin no more than Jesus necesarilly died because of personal sin. Indeed, both Enoch and Elijah were translated into heaven-- so I don’t see the problem with Mary’s Assumption in this matter.
A
agangbern
Guest
At whatever point the theory of evolution fails, theology could conveniently fill.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Well thanks. Now we know…We thought you were a fundamentalist Catholic…Glad to know your’re not. We don’t follow fundamentalism and your personal interpretation of the bible.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
It matters not. Fundamentalism is a mental issue, facts and logic will never effect a fundamentalist. they must believe what they believe because they structure their faith based on a book. If one word is false then their faith collapses. It leads them to take these utterly rediculous stances based on desire. there are no facts to support the position.
The fact that fundamentalists are the way they are is regrettable, but the fact that some Catholics choose to ignore the Church in favor of this personal theology is a crime. They do immeasurable harm to the Church and to the Church’s ability to speak with authority to the world. ITs embarrassing to see and read such childish backward thinking from people supposedly educated and with rational thinking brains.
They make a true mockery of God with their claims. God is the new alltime liar creating a deliberate falsehood with the express idea apparently to “catch” those who will believe their senses. Apparently the fundamnentalist God wishes only abject obedience from creatures who have foresworn the use of their minds. Apparently when God created man “in the image” the image isn’t supposed to think.
Its a sad state of affairs, but one not shared by most Catholics. I’ve been involved in 3 different parishes in 3 states in their RCIA programs as a sponsor. NONE teaches a literalist creationism or Adam and Eve. All the RCIA catechical material I’ve ever seen uses evolution and big bang. I have no doubt a ultra-orthodox parish here and there doesnt…they probably find plenty of tracts published by “nondenominational born again” sources to meet their needs.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
That’s not quite true. The first thing any non-Christian tells you about Christianity is that “they believe the nonsense that God is simultaneously one and three”.
With the insights of modern science, that doesn’t sound quite so outrageous. Whilst I wouldn’t say “quantum mechanics proves the Trinity”, we now think that particles can cohere, and that a relationship can also be an entity. God having simultanously a unitary and triune nature sounds perfectly reasonable.
D
Donald45
Guest
As you’ve already admitted, it’s reliable enough to demonstrate that the earth is a whole lot older than 6,000 years. In any case, as already mentioned, there are several other scientific methods for determining the relative age of the universe and earth, and their ages are (forgive the pun) astronomically greater than YEC contends. You seem to think that C14 is the only experimental means available to scientists.
Blessings,
Don
+T+
V
VociMike
Guest
Well, OK.
I do happen to believe that quantum physics and modern cosmology are more likely lead an open-minded person to faith rather than away from faith.
D
Donald45
Guest
This is what’s known as a “God-of-the-gaps” argument, and results in both inadequate science and faulty theology. The ancients couldn’t comprehend how lightning occurred, and so surmised that the gods must be flinging fire at the earth. Using theological convictions to fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge is an inappropriate use of those beliefs, and is what critics call a “science-stopper.” If “God did it” is considered an all-purpose explanation for any and all physical phenomena, there’s little point in continuing with the scientific enterprise at all.
Blessings,
Don
+T+
D
Donald45
Guest
We are certainly not questioning the clarity of God’s word, only the clarity of creationism’s particular interpretation of God’s word.
No one’s questioning the authority, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Bible. We’re questioning the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of your preferred interpretation of the Bible. After all, you yourself are simply expressing a “fallen creature’s notions” of the Bible’s meaning, are you not?
…to your preferred interpretation of God’s revelation, you mean.
Salvation, not science.
Blessings,
Don
+T+
E
edwest2
Guest
Emotional outburst aside, can you give one example of how this harms the Church?
God bless,
Ed
D
Donald45
Guest
Plenty. According to the May 1982 issue of Eternity magazine ( a conservative Protestant publication), Christians have held over a dozen interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis over the centuries, so your opinion is certainly not “the official Christian view.”
Also, your approach completely ignores the cultural and literary context within which these texts were composed, and which they reflect in their contents. Genesis 1-2 are ancient texts, written by ancient people, in an ancient time period, with an ancient mindset and beliefs, to ancient readers who shared that mindset and those beliefs, and must be interpreted as such. These texts are certainly not modern documents by any stretch of the imagination, and are hardly concerned with the modern scientific questions and concerns that we might find appealing. Your interpretation is merely an exercise in literary and historical anachronism.
Or not (unless your preferred interpretation is somehow infallible?).
Blessings,
Don
+T+
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Sure ed…When people like you continue to claim that as Catholics we are still believing that the Creation in Genesis is literal and all science is a deliberate lie…tell that to a non-Catholic who thinks you’re off your rocker…but you insist that is what the Church teaches…that person thinks my Church is nuts…When my Church speaks out on any issue…that person says…who can trust what a church that still doesn’t believe in evolution has to say?
You embarass me and my Church…I would be appalled to find a newspaper article headline…“Many in RCC still believe in creationism and that dinosaurs walked alongside humans” I can only imagine the hoots of laughter by the vast majority of the civilized world. And in that you make me look a fool for being a Catholic. Believe what you like…but for Goodness sake, make it clear that the Church doesn’t claim it as well. .
- Status