Myths and fairy tales ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry Ed, your claim is incoherent.

“As the Catechism puts it, 'Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God.”

Genetic science contradicts the sacred mythology of a single breeding pair named “Adam” and “Eve”. Either we throw out the ongoing work of genetic science in favor of an ancient symbolic story – thereby further eroding the credibility of religion in a world investigated by science, or we adjust our symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Most Catholics have no problem with the latter theological course.

StAnastasia
So, every time scientists come up with a new theory, we should adjust what we believe to fit it?

Do you really think Jesus died to redeem mankind from a symbolic story, or from an “evolving awareness of morality”? You never answered my other question - do you believe Jesus was crucified, died and was buried and on the third day he arose again - or is that a symbolic story also?
 
Genetic science contradicts the sacred mythology of a single breeding pair named “Adam” and “Eve”. Either we throw out the ongoing work of genetic science in favor of an ancient symbolic story – thereby further eroding the credibility of religion in a world investigated by science, or we adjust our symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Most Catholics have no problem with the latter theological course.

StAnastasia
Hi StAnastatia. Evolution theory, while tried and proven as a scientific model is far from understood as are the circumstances that surround human genesis. Throwing out either, imo would be a disrespect to the mystery unique to both and a disservice to the truth.
 
The letters of St. Paul included in the New Testament have God as their author. Do you think God knows about genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, or paleontology?
Paul was the author of those letters. Although he was inspired by God, he did not take dictation. That’s a Protestant notion.
 
So, every time scientists come up with a new theory, we should adjust what we believe to fit it?

Do you really think Jesus died to redeem mankind from a symbolic story, or from an “evolving awareness of morality”? You never answered my other question - do you believe Jesus was crucified, died and was buried and on the third day he arose again - or is that a symbolic story also?
(1) Yes, we are constantly adjusting as scientific knowledge makes new discoveries.

(2) Yes, I believe in Jesus’ Resurrection.
 
Hi StAnastatia. Evolution theory, while tried and proven as a scientific model is far from understood as are the circumstances that surround human genesis. Throwing out either, imo would be a disrespect to the mystery unique to both and a disservice to the truth.
Throwing out either evolution and what? (The other part of your disjunction is missing).
 
Throwing out either evolution and what? (The other part of your disjunction is missing).
Evolution theory or the belief that the entire human race is the offspring of one father and one mother.

We lack the prerequisite knowledge to judge either a lie.
 
John Oxios, Anaximander, Pythagoras and Aristotle knew nothing of genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, or paleontology. Neither did Saint Paul.
No but they knew and discussed Evolution, ,maybe they didn’t call it Evolution, but Darwin didn’t make it up he and Herbert Spencer gave it a new twist.
My point is Paul is hard to understand because of the Volume of Study God provided for him throughout his life, and through revelation, and if there was any inkling of truth to so called Man evolving from other forms of life He would have at least mentioned it.

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you
16 as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/PAUL.HTM
…Paul was a product of the Jewish diaspora and was born in the Cilician city of Tarsus in Asia Minor; unlike all the other earliest followers of Christianity, he was not a native of Palestine. As a citizen of Tarsus he was also officially a citizen of Rome. Raised in Greek culture and fluent in Greek, it was natural that he would take the side of the Hellenists in the dispute over the direction of the church. He was, however, also a member of the Pharisees, a zealous group of Jews that focussed rigorously on Jewish Law and the strict adherence to that law.

His natural orientation towards the Greek world led to his most significant innovations in the new religion; it’s not unfair to say that the religion Paul left the world was a substantially different religion than what he started with. The most salient aspect of the theology and ethics of Paul is his emphasis on Christianity as a universal religion. Whereas Jesus of Nazareth and many of his followers seemed to narrowly conceive of the religion as a religion of the Jews, Paul, in the context of the debate between the Hebrews and the Hellenists, tirelessly and creatively recast Christianity as a religion for all peoples.
…Paul was magnificently tolerant of Greek practices of eating or circumcision, he did not tolerate other aspects, such as homosexuality. In pursuit of this, he took a contradictory course to his universal stance and declared salvation off-limits to an entire set of people engaged in certain behaviors. In social and political terms, his list of excluded peoples would reverberate throughout Christian history in social tensions and, in some cases, violent oppression of excluded groups.

God bless,
John :highprayer:
 
Sorry Ed, your claim is incoherent.

“As the Catechism puts it, 'Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God.”

Genetic science contradicts the sacred mythology of a single breeding pair named “Adam” and “Eve”. Either we throw out the ongoing work of genetic science in favor of an ancient symbolic story – thereby further eroding the credibility of religion in a world investigated by science, or we adjust our symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Most Catholics have no problem with the latter theological course.

StAnastasia
Church teaching describes the fact of Adam and Eve. Real people who had a direct relationship with God. As Cardinal Schoenborn has pointed out, the heavy accretion of materialism has covered essential truths given by divine revelation. I am seeing less and less science presented here and more ideology. The formula is this: by reducing Sacred Scripture to symbolism, the needs of the theist and antitheist are satisfied in a one size fits all relationship. This is wrong, and I think those who make such statements that turn the Bible into symbolism know this.

The credibility of religion has always been in doubt. Science, as it is practiced today, increases that doubt by substituting claims it cannot demonstrate in a credible way as worthy of acceptance by Catholics and nontheists.

The purpose of the Church is evangelization. Science, today, is the antievangelization. It posits purely mechanical causes for physical forms and mind-brain development. Science dehumanizes man.

Peace,
Ed
 
Evolution theory or the belief that the entire human race is the offspring of one father and one mother. We lack the prerequisite knowledge to judge either a lie.
Benadam, science doesn’t generally judge unsupported theories as “lies”; they are just as unsubstantiated theories. The consensus in the genetics community is that if the hominid population had at any time dropped to a "genetic bottleneck " of only one breeding pair (“Adam” and “Eve”), there would be unmistakable evidence of this imprinted on the human genome. There is no evidence of this. In fact, there is no evidence that the human population dropped at any point below 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs.,

Of course, it is possible that God faked the whole genome to trick modern scientists, but in that case, God could have faked the whole of creation to appear as if a literal reading of Genesis were required. God could have faked the earth to look 4.5 billion years old and as if it had all be covered with water at one time. God could have faked the universe to appear 13.7 billion years old. God could have faked the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion, the deep history of time, and the formation of the Grand Canyon.

God could have done this, but I don’t think God is a faker.

StAnastasia
 
The credibility of religion has always been in doubt. Science, as it is practiced today, increases that doubt by substituting claims it cannot demonstrate in a credible way as worthy of acceptance by Catholics and nontheists.
Ed, if religion is in doubt it is because of literalists like you. Educated Catholics and Protestants made peace years ago with the scientific world view which you are at constant war. The conference I attended in Rome last year is testimonial to the rich, diverse, and productive conversation that continues between theologians, philosophers, and scientists. You are welcome to join that conversation. Or, you can continue to kvetch from the sidelines.

StAnastasia
 
Ed, if religion is in doubt it is because of literalists like you. Educated Catholics and Protestants made peace years ago with the scientific world view which you are at constant war. The conference I attended in Rome last year is testimonial to the rich, diverse, and productive conversation that continues between theologians, philosophers, and scientists. You are welcome to join that conversation. Or, you can continue to kvetch from the sidelines.

StAnastasia
A listing of positive adjectives does not erase the point: science, today, dehumanizes man by turning him into a mechanism. Science, as practiced today, has only strictly defined and limited things to say about the world. It cannot lead theology. There is no separate scientific world. There is only the complete person and the proper understanding of divine revelation. Science cannot study God or the supernatural, so it’s application to the work of God is questionable at best. There are no peer reviewed papers offering a scientific analysis of Biblical events. Today, right now, the entire Church is waiting on miracles to be attributed to Pope John Paul II and others. Science can only look so far.

Peace,
Ed
 
Science, as practiced today, has only strictly defined and limited things to say about the world. It cannot lead theology. …Science can only look so far.
Peace,Ed
Then kvetch from the sidelines.
 
Ed, if religion is in doubt it is because of literalists like you. Educated Catholics and Protestants made peace years ago with the scientific world view which you are at constant war. The conference I attended in Rome last year is testimonial to the rich, diverse, and productive conversation that continues between theologians, philosophers, and scientists. You are welcome to join that conversation. Or, you can continue to kvetch from the sidelines.

StAnastasia
so lets just see who is at war and why according to Godless warriors."Christianity has fought,still fights,and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution,because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly necessary - if Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins,and this is what evolution means,then Christianity is nothing! “what all this means is that Christianity
cannot lose the Genesis account of creation like it could lose the doctrine of geocentrism and get along.The battle must be waged,for Christianity is fighting for its very life”[G. Richard Bozarth in an article “The Meaning of Evolution”- American Atheist,page 20,Feb 1978]-nothing changes or has changed.It is,however clear that the opposition know more about what Christianity truly stands for than some Christians who choose to attack Christianity from within posing as phony/pseudo evolutionists who the real evolutionists do not want to know and regard as trying to play it safe with one foot in each camp etc - twinc
 
so lets just see who is at war and why according to Godless warriors."Christianity has fought,still fights,and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution,because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly necessary - if Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins,and this is what evolution means,then Christianity is nothing! “what all this means is that Christianity
cannot lose the Genesis account of creation like it could lose the doctrine of geocentrism and get along.The battle must be waged,for Christianity is fighting for its very life”[G. Richard Bozarth in an article “The Meaning of Evolution”- American Atheist,page 20,Feb 1978]
This is just silly. Like most atheists, Bozrath is ignorant of Christian theology. I imagine Pope Benedict would find Bozrath’s account risible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top