Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

  • Thread starter Thread starter nmercier1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Barbarian said:
The Bible doesn’t say that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat.

There is much in the story that is not literal history, and clearly, the “Mountains of Ararat” are not “Mt. Ararat.” We don’t actually know where it landed now, because the location of the Ararat Mountains is unknown.
Click to expand...
Upon what do you base your conclusion that much in the story is not literal history? Even Christ refers to the days of Noe.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Upon what do you base your conclusion that much in the story is not literal history? Even Christ refers to the days of Noe.
Click to expand...
And your argument is, that if Christ repeats an allegory, that converts it to a literal history? You’ll need to fill that one out a little, if you want someone to believe it.

Or is it your argument that Christ never used parables?
 
So I guess your point is that if it happened, it was a miracle?
Click to expand...
Anything is credible, if you can add enough non-Scriptural miracles. But we, as Catholics, are not supposed to do that.
 
We are not supposed to add unscriptural miracles to the Bible.
 
ricmat said:
Why is it important to know exactly when infusion takes place, so long as we know that it did take place?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why some Catholics think it’s important to insist that they know exactly when soular infusion takes place, but some do, insisting that it happens at the moment of fertilization of the egg. And if two ensouled eggs fuse to form one tetragemetic blasotcyst that develops into an embryo and later a fetus, we end up with a fetus possessed of two souls.
 
Memaw said:
As Fr. Benedict Groeschel would say, You were there??? You have NO IDEA how hard it rained at that time. Like I said, It musta rained pretty hard to kill off all the birds too.
Click to expand...
Memaw, where did the water come from? The world’s oceans together could not supply 29,035 feet of rain water. And after the flood, where did it go? Where does 29,035 feet of rain water drain away?
 
ricmat said:
So I guess your point is that if it happened, it was a miracle?
Click to expand...
If Noah’s Flood happened as a literal event, no aspect of it is susceptible of a scientific explanation: source and drain for water), survival of anadromous fish, survival of plants, collection of marsupials from Australia or of animals from the Americas, repopulation of continents with fauna,etc.

And yet, the creationist literal flood proponents are not content to leave it as a miracle – they desperately argue for it as a literal historical event susceptible of a scientific explanation. They contradict themselves.
 
The_Barbarian said:
And your argument is, that if Christ repeats an allegory, that converts it to a literal history? You’ll need to fill that one out a little, if you want someone to believe it.

Or is it your argument that Christ never used parables?
Click to expand...
Your picking and choosing what is literal and what is parable is not up to you. Every word Christ spoke is true. And it is clear that he could literally raise the dead, turn water to wine and heal the sick.

God bless,
Ed
 
drpmjhess said:
If Noah’s Flood happened as a literal event, no aspect of it is susceptible of a scientific explanation: source and drain for water), survival of anadromous fish, survival of plants, collection of marsupials from Australia or of animals from the Americas, repopulation of continents with fauna,etc.

And yet, the creationist literal flood proponents are not content to leave it as a miracle – they desperately argue for it as a literal historical event susceptible of a scientific explanation. They contradict themselves.
Click to expand...
OK - I see where you’re coming from now. Thanks.
 
Barbarian asks:
And your argument is, that if Christ repeats an allegory, that converts it to a literal history? You’ll need to fill that one out a little, if you want someone to believe it.

Or is it your argument that Christ never used parables?
Your picking and choosing what is literal and what is parable is not up to you.
Click to expand...
I’d like a straight answer, if you will.
Every word Christ spoke is true.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of it was parables, and was true, but not literally true.
And it is clear that he could literally raise the dead, turn water to wine and heal the sick.
Click to expand...
So how does the fact that He could do miracles mean that He never spoke in parables? Could we have a straight answer?
 
Is it I want a straight answer or we? You are part of a small group here that reinterprets scripture to suit yourselves. Global flood? You say local flood. Jesus spoke the truth always. You say, yes, but not always literally.

You reinterpret the Bible to suit your desire to place man’s knowledge over the knowledge given by God. It’s not possible.

You want the Catholic Church to love science the way you love science. It’s not possible. No matter how many times I quote Human Persons Created in the Image of God, you continue to repeat the same tired lines over and over. Science is assured. Science is accurate. The Bible? Eh. There are so many different interpretations.

Get a Catholic Catechism. Or read the one online.

God bless,
Ed
 
drpmjhess said:
Memaw, on a literal interpretation of the Noah’s flood story, there was not enough rain to cover the highest mountain. Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet high. The most rainfall ever recorded in one day took place on March 15, 1952, in Cilaos, La Re´union island, in the Indian Ocean, when 73.62 inches fell on March 15, 1952. Rain falling at this rate continuously for forty days and nights would produce only 2944.8 inches, or 254.4 feet of rain, for an average of 6.135 feet per day. In order to cover Mt. Everest it would have to have rained continuously at this rate for 4732 days, far longer than Noah’s flood lasted in the Genesis myth.

Petrus
Click to expand...
ricmat said:
So I guess your point is that if it happened, it was a miracle?
Click to expand...
The_Barbarian said:
Anything is credible, if you can add enough non-Scriptural miracles. But we, as Catholics, are not supposed to do that.
Click to expand...
ricmat said:
We, as Catholics, are not supposed to do what?
Click to expand...
The_Barbarian said:
We are not supposed to add unscriptural miracles to the Bible.
Click to expand...
ricmat said:
Was somebody doing that?
Click to expand...
No answer from Barbarian to the above quote.

Barbarian, from the above threads you seem to be saying that interpreting Noah’s flood as a miracle was “adding unscriptural miracles to the Bible.”

If this isn’t what you meant, please clarify.
 
Memaw said:
You got something against miracles??? I would say that everything God does is a “miracle.”
Click to expand...
I am absolutely in favor of God’s miracles. I was pointing to the fact that for all that water to come down, and then go someplace, that would definitely qualify as a miracle.

I asked it as a question to see if that’s where the original poster was coming from.
 
rossum said:
The place Abraham is to move to is called eretz. If eretz means “planet” then Abraham has to leave wherever he is and go to a new planet. If eretz means “piece of land” then Abraham has to leave wherever he is and go to a new piece of land.

The argument is obvious to Glenn Morton: Why I Believe Genesis is Historically Accurate.

rossum
Click to expand...
Did I ever say anything about “planet?” Don’t think sooo. I think I did say that the word “land” has more than one meaning.
 
ricmat said:
I am absolutely in favor of God’s miracles. I was pointing to the fact that for all that water to come down, and then go someplace, that would definitely qualify as a miracle.

I asked it as a question to see if that’s where the original poster was coming from.
Click to expand...
I agree !!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top