Narrow to a specific question

[Kirane]

Hubriss:

Otherwise, it would be known as the Lemaitre Theory.

Well, like I said, the name big bang was possibly given to the theory in 1949 by its chief rival Hoyle, the advocate of the steady state theory. They did try to change the name later on, and there was a contest in August 1993 sponsored by Sky and Telescope Magazine to rename it. In any event, Catholicism does not take the Genesis story in the Bible literally or as scientific truth, but there is a current of thought which holds that the big bang was the beginning of the universe or of Creation.

 

[Hubriss]

To Thal59:
“The church has taught the fullness of truth for almost 2,000 years now.”

• You mean the church has taught STUFF for 2,000 years, far from the “fullness of truth.” And what do you base that on? You come out with the presumption that the church is infallable, and everything they are saying is true because of that, yet there is absolutely no basis for their infallablility besides the fact that they just say they are. Just because Catholicism has been a major factor in bringing about better education and health care does not mean in the slightest bit that what they preach is from an all-mighty, yet kind god. The end does not justify the means (as most people say), and to get real meticulous, making people’s lives better does not justify lying about the truth (but who really cares?).

The reason why science is sometimes inconsistant is because we admit that we do not know everything, not that its theories and observations are useless. We constantly try to improve our knowledge.

“Evolution is a highly contested theory.”

• It is only highly contested either because people do not understand it or realize the evidence, and religious people evidently like you insist on maintaining their beliefs, even if it means rejecting knowledge.

“I have found it necessary to reject knowledge in order to make room for faith.” - Kant.

You assume that when someone says, “entirely theoretical,” that is automatically false.

Yes, you do believe a soul controls the body. You believe that if a man has pre-marital sex with a women, the soul is at fault. The soul must then repent to a priest, and it does so through the body. I did not say you think it is seperate from the body, but know that you rather believe it is within the body. You know very well what I mean when I say the soul. It is the spirit or whatever that you believe will retain memory, knowledge, etc (basically what the body is except for the physical stuff). The soul would be developed by the body, therefore retaining its experiences, and will remain after death to continue into your next life. Or why don’t you define the soul for me?

“If you were to die tonight, how many people would remember you? What solid proof would there be that you existed once your bones turned to dust?”

• You are attempting to appeal to my emotions, again having nothing to do with truth. No one would have proof that I existed maybe after sever hundred years unless for example they had a picture of me and knew that at the time the picture was taken, it was impossible to artifitially create such a detailed image. Then that would be more of a reason to believe I exit than Jesus, seeing that he has nothing (not blaming him though, how could he?). But yes, once that turns to dust, there will likely be nothing. UNLESS I did something world changing that would be notworthy of history books, then of course, I would be remembered. Muhamad was remembered yet you and I believe he was just a crazy radical.

When you say that it is not necessary to read the OT literally, you say that the person who wrote it did not intend that it was meant to be believed. But if it wasn’t, why would anyone believe it literally? The Jews had always believed it literally, and if the man who wrote it was really under the inspiration of God, and meant to write it literally, then it turns out it’s actually not true, God must be wrong.

No, Judaism did not come from the OT, and the OT did not come from Judaism, they came together, at the same time. The writings were a reflection of their beliefs, meant to be taken literally. Not same for the church however, the bible came after the church as a reflection of its beliefs.

The bottom line is we both make assumptions. But the scientific side is much more sincere in its quest for truth as it does not biasedly reject new ideas in favor of currently held ones.

 

[Thal59]

Hubriss:

The reason why science is sometimes inconsistant is because we admit that we do not know everything, not that its theories and observations are useless. We constantly try to improve our knowledge.

I agree. I never implied or stated that its theories and observations are useless. I merely stated that science is not the “much more solid” entity that you proclaimed it to be. What the church has received in the “deposit of faith once for all delivered to the saints,” has been far more reliable and immutable. Like science, as man grows our understanding of more complex truths also develops. But the fullness of truth has been useful for 2,000 years, whereas much of the science you laud only came into existence in the past few centuries.

Furthermore, nothing that was given in the deposit of faith has been whole handedly rejected as nonsense as some scientific theories have; or do we need to discuss phrenology?

Hubriss:

“Evolution is a highly contested theory.”

• It is only highly contested either because people do not understand it or realize the evidence, and religious people evidently like you insist on maintaining their beliefs, even if it means rejecting knowledge.

Again you place the theory of evolution before me as if it is indeniably correct and factual. You then accuse me of rejecting knowledge because I do not accept evolutions theoretical findings. It is a theory, nothing more. It has proven nothing. Let me point out a few scientific gems.

1. I watched a “documentary” on the theory of the development of birds from reptiles. At one point they used an animated sequence to show the evloutionary changes from reptile to bird. The sequence consisted of a reptile with powerful lower legs and stunted arms running like a gazelle from right to left. As the miracle of evolution took over, the large powerful legs “devolved” into little birds feet, while the useless stunted arms grew out into wings! Whatever happend to the “scientific fact” that whatever a species uses developes, and what it does not use, regresses? (i.e. the wings of a penguin.) Yet, here is a reptile that uses its running ability, which is vital for its existence in running down prey and escaping predators, suddenly losing its powerful legs in favor of little birds feet for grasping branches, while it useless arms become wings! While there are many evolutionists that consider this theory to be legitimate, I consider it sheer idiocy.
2. Anthropologist tried to demonstrate on TV what they had learned from a fossilized site. This site consisted of footprints, what appeared to be an earthen nest, and a few eggshell pieces. For them to say that this particular reptile built its nest on the ground and hatched its young from eggs is a legitimate observation. But, they then “reconstructed” an eco-system from it. They “theorized” what social life between certain life forms back then were like, who their enemies were, who was benign to them, how their young developed, what skills their parents taught them, etc., and all from the fossil remains of footprints, a nest, and a few bits of shell. Is this truly knowledge? Or is “theory” a scientific word for “guesswork?”
3. When Mt. St. Helens exploded, the damage to the local flora and fauna was immense. A few years later, a group of scientists visited the site to see how the land was recovering. One of the scientists admitted that they all had pre-conceived notions of what they would find, and they all were shocked to see that the results were nothing like what they had anticipated. Consider this for a moment, Hubriss. Scientists who studied 20th century ecology, something that is readily available to them, were completely wrong in estimating how the ecology would recover after a singular natural disaster. Yet, you would have me believe that such great intellectuals have “proven” something regarding evolution or the Big Bang theory?

“I have found it necessary to reject knowledge in order to make room for faith.” - Kant.

That’s Kant’s problem not mine. I do not reject knowledge for faith because faith adds to my knowledge; they are not enemies which are mutually exclusive.

Hubriss:

You assume that when someone says, “entirely theoretical,” that is automatically false.

A very unintelligent conclusion to jump to. When I say that something is entirely theoretical I mean just that; that it is not factual knowledge, it is only theory. It may be true, it may be false. But being a theory does not make it automatically true.

more…

 

[Thal59]

Hubriss:

Yes, you do believe a soul controls the body. You believe that if a man has pre-marital sex with a women, the soul is at fault. The soul must then repent to a priest, and it does so through the body. I did not say you think it is seperate from the body, but know that you rather believe it is within the body. You know very well what I mean when I say the soul. It is the spirit or whatever that you believe will retain memory, knowledge, etc … Or why don’t you define the soul for me?

You are now stating facts on the basis that you know what I believe? This is straw-man to perfectrion. (i.e. Let me tell you what you think, and I will then pick it apart and show how wrong you are!) Because this reply is based on bias and guesswork regarding what I believe, it is not worth replying to. Regarding the question in red; since your observations of lesser complex issues has been faulty, you would have no ability to conceieve of the soul.

Hubriss:

“If you were to die tonight, how many people would remember you? What solid proof would there be that you existed once your bones turned to dust?”

• You are attempting to appeal to my emotions, again having nothing to do with truth. No one would have proof that I existed maybe after sever hundred years unless for example they had a picture of me and knew that at the time the picture was taken, it was impossible to artifitially create such a detailed image. Then that would be more of a reason to believe I exit than Jesus, seeing that he has nothing (not blaming him though, how could he?). But yes, once that turns to dust, there will likely be nothing. UNLESS I did something world changing that would be notworthy of history books, then of course, I would be remembered. Muhamad was remembered yet you and I believe he was just a crazy radical.

Red text: I am not appealling to your emotions. I offered an analogy out of reason. You attempted to deny any evidence that Jesus existed. I merely pointed out that there is more “proof” of His existence than there is for you and I, especially considering His proof will outlive ours. But then, you bring up a remark that is absolutley asinine! (Bold text) It is impossible to create a false photographic image? Utter nonsense! We do it all the time. When was the last time you watched a movie with special effects? When was the last time you saw an “age progression” photo of a missing child?

A “doctored” photgraphic image is more proof that the image existed than Jesus did? As if this was not bad enough, you then finish it with a self contradiciting statement…

Blue text: You tell me that since there is no photograph of Jesus, there is no acceptable proof of His existence. Then, you tell me that if the photo that gives irrefutable proof of your existence should be destroyed, you would then not be remembered. UNLESS you did something world changing and worthy of the History books. But you do not apply this logic to Jesus, whose life was more world-changing and preserved in the history books than any other man! (In realitym there are images of Jesus; the veil of St.Veronica, and the shroud of Turin.)

Hubriss:

When you say that it is not necessary to read the OT literally, you say that the person who wrote it did not intend that it was meant to be believed.

Sheer nonsense. I stated the differences between historical, instructive, poetic, prophetic, and if I may add now, apocolyptic texts. Some can be read literally, some cannot; one must understand the genre, purpose, and the structure of the work. Once again,** you group all of the different texts into one literal category.** You then presuppose that I am inferring that the author didn’t expect his writings to be believed. Hubriss, this is enough!

I try not to get angry or offensive, but I am at the point that were I to continue, I would engage in some very unChristian behavior. Regardless of this, the truth must be told:

You have made far too many nonsense arguments based off of prejudice and bias, not knowledge. You have not shown an ability to debate point for point without grossly taking words out of context. You are making blanket “one size fits all” statements regarding topics that you obviously have no knowledge of. You stoop to telling people what they think and believe, and then you attack your errant pre-misconceptions.

In a nutshell, as arrogant as it may make me sound, you have no credibility. When someone fails to this degree, I opt out. There is nothing positive that can come from a further exchange between us. I simply do not have the patience to argue against utter nonsense.

I will leave the rest of your remarks to those who have more patience than I.

Thal59

 

[Contarini]

Hubriss:

Let me ask you two things then Contarini.

Why do you believe Jesus was God/The Son of God?

I’m happy to share some of my reasons, and to debate them frankly, but let’s get one thing clear. I do not believe that any important decision is based on some simple chain of reasoning. This isn’t how we make most of our personal decisions–we weigh a multitude of factors, including intuitive and emotional ones. So I won’t be very bothered if you scoff at many of my reasons. That’s fine by me. Here are some of them (it would take far too long to list them all):

1. I was brought up to believe the Christian faith, which gives me a strong reason to afford it the benefit of the doubt. My knowledge of truth and beauty and goodness is filtered through a Christian lens, and my experience of the world has on the whole confirmed that paradigm more than it has contradicted it.
2. There is remarkably good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus–several independent accounts dating mere decades afer the event. I don’t claim that I can prove the Resurrection, but given my initial acceptance of the Christian paradigm the evidence is quite good enough for me to go on accepting Christianity.
3. While Christianity has been associated with plenty of evil, it has also produced goodness and wisdom of a caliber that I find compelling. I want to be part of the tradition that produced people like Francis of Assisi and Julian of Norwich and George Herbert. And in my own experience, while nonbelievers are often fine people, they seem to lack something in their lives that believers possess. There is a dimension to being human that seems to be brought out by religious faith, but in particular by faith in Christ.
4. Personally, the story of Jesus and of the Christian faith gives meaning to my life and gives shape to my own struggle toward goodness and beauty and truth. What gives that shape to your life? What ideal governs you? What story of the universe gives your moral struggles meaning?
5. The development of ancient Hebrew religion is a remarkable story–as I tell my students, the development of monotheism under circumstances that would more reasonably of caused the Hebrews to abandon faith in their God was an act of incredible cheek. Or (something I can’t say to my students in a secular university) it was the result of a genuine revelation of God. The development of Hebrew religion looks like a divine act to me. And if that’s true–if there really is a God who acts in human history, who picks the weak to defeat the strong, who loves justice and mercy above everything–then the story of Jesus is a fitting and reasonable climax to the story of this God’s actions in history. (This is the sense in which the OT-NT connection you tried to draw works–not that I believe every event in the OT to be completely accurate, but in the sense that the story as a whole points toward the existence of a God who intervenes in human history in the way Christianity claims.)

I am not putting these reasons forward in order to convince you. Possibly we could have a good discussion about exactly what constitutes proper warrant for a belief (though perhaps that should take place in a different thread). I am sure that in your mind none of these constitute adequate reasons. But they are the sort of reasons that convince me. I don’t think absolute certainty is possible in anything that matters. You have to pick a paradigm and live by it, abandoning it only if it breaks down irretrievably.

Two books that have recently helped clarify my thinking on these matters are Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by William Abraham and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

 

[Contarini]

Do you approve of “cafeteria catholics?”

I’m not sure why any Catholics would care if I approve or disapprove of them. I don’t approve of people disregarding the traditions and authority structures to which they claim to adhere, or treating their own individual preferences as the ultimate authority. But at the same time I recognize that everyone interprets their own tradition and that often the accusation “cafeteria Catholic” is used as a rhetorical weapon by conservatives against anyone whose interpretation of Catholicism is more “liberal” than their own.

You seem to only literally believe what has not yet been proven or disproven.

Well, I obviously don’t believe something that has been disproven. . . I’m not really sure what your statement means.

I need to distinguish between two different categories of things in the Bible I “literally believe.” There are a few things that I believe actually occurred in historical time (that does not mean that the Biblical accounts of them are accurate in every detail) either because I perceive them to be essential to the Christian Faith or because the Church has clearly declared historically that they are. The virginal conception, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, the creation of the world at a point in time (i.e., what scientists call the “Big Bang”), the ensoulment and subsequent fall of the human race, and the Exodus from Egypt, would definitely fall into this category. Pretty much everything else in the Bible could theoretically be debated. It would require overwhelming proof (of a kind pretty much impossible to procure about past events) to force me to give up my belief in any of the items mentioned above, and if I did give them up I would either lose my faith or have to reconsider it radically.

On the other hand, I tend to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Most of the narrative portions of the OT (especially Torah and Former Prophets–i.e., Joshua through Kings) from Gen. 12 on are, in my view, basically historical. But they have events that I regard as legendary, at least in many of their details. And the whole book of Joshua is somewhat suspect as a literal narrative on both historical and moral grounds. Samuel and Kings are obviously historical, though that doesn’t mean that I’ll die in the trenches for the accuracy of every detail. The same is true for the narrative portions of the NT–namely the Gospels and Acts. I also tend to assume that the NT epistles were written by the apostles whose names they bear (or by amanuenses writing for said apostles) unless there is overwhelming evidence against apostolic authorship. Which usually there isn’t.

In other words, I am going to favor historical theories that support the historicity of the Biblical narrative, and I’m going to be skeptical of more skeptical theories. But (unlike the essential events described earlier) I’m not likely to buck an overhwelming historical consensus. Since I’m not a specialist in Biblical studies, I generally base my personal views on those of scholars who seem to combine scholarly integrity with orthodox faith–people like John Bright and William Albright for the OT, and N.T. Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson, and F.F. Bruce for the NT.

 

[Contarini]

Do you believe in the Tower of Babel?

The Tower of Babel is a legend. In my view it probably describes early empire-building initiatives in Mesopotamia (the Akkadian Empire, perhaps?), no doubt from the point of view of West Semitic semi-nomadic tribal peoples who were forced to work on building projects and rejoiced when these projects failed. Theologically, it teaches us that human attempts to achieve complete control over the world are arrogant and destructive and result in greater fragmentation and violence. Furthermore, the story indicates that the diversity of cultures throughout the world is a reminder of our human limitations. The chaos and destruction of the Tower of Babel is undone (or begins to be undone) at Pentecost. But Pentecost didn’t make everyone speak one language–it allowed everyone to understand the Gospel in their own language. This is the “reconciled diversity” for which Christians hope.

The strength of that bearded prophet guy Simon (i think)?

Do you mean Samson? Some people think Samson is a purely mythical figure based on his name (which seems to be related to the word for “sun”). I don’t buy that theory–I think he was a real person but the stories about him are folk tales and not to be taken too literally. But I could be wrong either way.

Because if God is really God, and he is all powerful, WHY the hell then is this stuff in the Old Testament not believable?

Depends what you are talking about. The two examples you gave look like myths/legends in the way they are told. The Tower of Babel especially. It’s about the literary genre, not about God’s power.

I’m skeptical about the literal truth of other things (like the sun standing still in Joshua, or the huge numbers cited throughout the OT) because while God could have acted in this way, it would require incredible miracles of a kind the text doesn’t seem to envision. God could bring the solar system to a standstill. But the nature of the story and its place in salvation history doesn’t seem appropriate to a miracle of that magnitude. And given that the historicity of the book of Joshua as a whole is rather questionable, I see no reason to get bent out of shape about it. Similarly, God could have allowed several million Hebrews to occupy a relatively small space, by shrinking them for instance. But again, that violates Occam’s razor–it’s a vast cosmic miracle with too little to justify it. So it’s far more reasonable to assume that these numbers are either exaggerated or incorrectly recorded or translated or whatever (the word “thousand” may indicate a military unit of far fewer than a thousand people).

None of this has to do with what is possible. It has to do with reading and interpreting the text in a reasonably accurate fashion.

You have no argument that the body has a soul. You don’t even know what a soul is. It is only speculation of what a soul might be, assuming there is a soul.

I’m not sure what kind of argument you are willing to have. I doubt that you accept the philosophical presuppositions with which I’m most familiar. I think that in speaking about human dignity and human nature, the more traditional metaphysical language is superior to that popular among modern scientists and analytical philosophers. Science is good at explaining how things function, but not at explaining what they are. You may see no meaningful difference. That’s your concern.

The “soul” in my view is the “form” of the body. That is to say, each of us has an innate dignity, a quality of being, that makes us human. Biologically this may well be an “emergent property.” But I’m not talking about biology. I’m talking about ontology. I’m using a vocabulary whose usefulness you probably don’t recognize. So I’m not sure there’s even any room for us to have an argument.

• Believing in Christianity requires the rejection of all other religions.

Only where they contradict Christianity. On a lot of issues they don’t contradict Christianity so much as they simply answer different questions. Sure, I don’t believe in reincarnation, for instance. So I think the Eastern religions are wrong about that. And so on. But that doesn’t mean that I regard other religions as useless. There is much that we can learn from them.

So however you can explain why they aren’t true and their value is where you can then put Christianity as well.

I believe that they are not true where they contradict Christianity. The only reason why I have any interest in “explaining why they aren’t true” is that I am committed to a different paradigm. I do not in principle reject the value of other religions and philosophies. On the contrary, I think they have great value. After all, many elements of Christianity came from other religions. Rejecting them would be kicking down the ladder I climbed on.

Edwin

 

[FCEGM]

Hubriss:

I made my first post about an hour ago with three questions on it who’s discussions could go on forever, so I’ve decided to pick one and put it out.

1. In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible, many (you) in our society seem to disregard it even though it is much more solid than what the church has to offer. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?
   Saying that it is not necessary to believe the bible literally to me means discount everything it has to say. If what the religion was based on (the old testament) is not true, then there is NO BASIS for the new testament. On the other hand, if you believe the bible and all its stories… I’d have to say you’re ignorant.

These are some of my favorite topics as I’m more of a scientific kind of guy. No one has yet to be able to explain theirselves out of them.

Since you think of yourself as a “scientific kind of guy”, a true scientist who is a believer (and a priest) should be of interest:

ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/jaki.htm

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Intro2.html

pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/barr.html

gonzagafaithreason.org/Gonzaga%20Lecture%20I.htm

thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2006/02/fr-stanley-jaki-on-evolution.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

 

[swnunley]

I’ll give you what I posted in your first thread.

My answer to you, what is your real reason for disbelief? Provide me absolute proof that some Supreme Being doesn’t exist. While I was in the Navy, I met plenty of agnostics/atheists. I’ve heard all their arguments, and yours is nothing new, trust me. They would come up with all kinds of logical sounding arguments, and we would spend hours debating the finer points of philosophy and theology.

But, one person I used to debate with was honest about it. Agnostic/Atheistic belief is about sin, and the Church’s view on what it is and isn’t. The real reason for his non-belief (and what I’ve found to be all unbelievers) was that it gave him liscense to live an immoral life, and indulge in pleasures of the flesh, while not having to feel guilty about it. He said I was a fool for denying myself the pleasures of life, and not taking as much as I could possibly grab. After all, after this, there is nothing.

I replied that what he says may be true, but my way of life still has value. I did good to other people, treated them with respect (he was notorious for shafting his shipmates), let my wife know I loved her by remaining faithful (he was divorced 2X and had been unfaithful), and that if indeed there was nothing else after this life, I could take satisfaction in the fact that I did live my life honorably, and had the respect of others. He certainly did not. (Yes, I said that to him - on submarines, we don’t hesitate to tell someone if we think he’s a dirtbag. He knew it was true, too.)

Then I said what if I am right and you are wrong? What if there is a God, and that He is real, and that He will judge us by our lives? What then if you die? Is the possibility that something can exist without our physical perception worth the risk of your eternal soul?

You see, young man, your real reason for disbelief is that you are looking for an excuse to taste the pleasures of the flesh. You are young, developing your own mind about things, and see all the world has to offer, and you desire them. But there is an obstacle, and that is the moral teachings of religion. So, you come up with your argument that God may not exist, and that, or so you think, destroys that obstacle. That’s a BIG risk you are taking. Are you willing to risk the possibility that God does exist and spend all eternity in Hell, just so you can have liscense?

My friend thought so; and he cheated on his wife, stole from me and from others, went AWOL, and after he was processed out of the Navy for a Bad Conduct Discharge (a felony conviction), he was killed driving his motorcycle drunk. He was only 24. You see, one of the things about being young is you have no sense of death. But you could die at any minute. Nothing is guaranteed. I could give you a list a mile long of young people I’ve known who died suddenly (especially teenagers). You may be right about there being no God - but what if you’re wrong. Is your belief worth the risk?

From your posts, it sounds like your father and godfather deeply care for you and your eternal soul. Your lack of respect for them is disturbing. They are showing you the way of life that wisdom and years have shown them to be valuable being price. I have a 17 year old son, and if he said the things that you say, I would be greatly troubled, as I know they must be. You really need to listen to them, respect what say, and stop being so flip and disrespectful.

Finally, my advice to you, is that before you fully embrace your agnosticism (that’s why you came here, for final proof to yourself that you had the “winning argument” or in the hope that someone could come up with something convincing enough to you, because you secretly want to believe - which I think is probably the case) ask that if there is a God out there, for Him to reveal Himself to you in a real way. What have you got to lose? If you are right, nothing will happen, and you can go about your merry way, having faith in nothing. Or, God will reveal Himself to you, and you will embrace Him, and save your eternal soul from Hell. You really owe it to yourself to make one last ditch effort.

One other thing. The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître. So, a man of Faith gave you your foundation of faithlessness. Interesting.

 

[Anne_G]

A few years ago I had the devil talk to me over a short period tormenting me, then God stepped in and talked to me too, and with his help and prayer I got rid of the Devil. How do you explain that one…I suppose I’m Schizphrenic as that would be the scientific explaination, even though the Doctors cannot state what causes schizophrenia, they just have theories. I can offer as much proof that this happened to me as the theorists of the big bang can.
God reveals himself to so many people in various ways. I believed in God before this happened but not the Devil. Most Christians can feel the presence of God in them and see his work around them.
I believe everything that the Bible states happened, happened. God told me to read the Bible when the above happened, so if it wasn’t true or parts weren’t true he wouldn’t have pushed for me to read it, but I can offer no proof.
It is the message that the Bible is relaying, that is the most important thing. If every person lived their life according to what the Bible teaches then this world would be absolutely perfect. No wars, no murders, no stealing, no hunger, no sexual deviances, no child abuse, etc, etc, etc. Has science solved these problems, no, but the Bible (thanks to God) does.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

“Evolution is a highly contested theory.”

• It is only highly contested either because people do not understand it or realize the evidence, and religious people evidently like you insist on maintaining their beliefs, even if it means rejecting knowledge.

Actually, “evolution” is proven every time a child is conceived and develops within a womb.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

You have to pick a paradigm and live by it, abandoning it only if it breaks down irretrievably.

So true.

 

[Kirane]

FCEGM:

Since you think of yourself as a “scientific kind of guy”, a true scientist who is a believer (and a priest) should be of interest:

ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/jaki.htm

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Intro2.html

pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/barr.html

gonzagafaithreason.org/Gonzaga%20Lecture%20I.htm

thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2006/02/fr-stanley-jaki-on-evolution.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

thanks for the interesting links.

 

[Liberian]

Hubriss,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a joyful and blessed time here.

The supposed “evidence against the Bible” tends to become not so contrary as one examines it closely and uses non-literal interpretations of various parts of the Bible that were not meant literally. For example, science is in much greater agreement with Genesis 1 than it was a hundred years ago, before the Big Bang theory became current. The predecessor to the Big Bang theory was the Steady-State theory, which dictated that the universe had been here forever and would last forever. We say nowadays that it was just a theory, but if you go back and read books from the time you will see that it was taught with just as much assurance as the Big Bang theory is taught now.

Incidentally, about half a century ago Pope Pius XII declared that the Big Bang theory is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the mind-body question, I submit to you that if our minds are solely the result of the motions of the molecules in our brains, then rational thought is impossible. The only relationship between the thoughts in our minds and the external world is cause and effect–the fact that the molecules in our brains are moving in a certain way; there is certainly nothing as esoteric as truth or falsehood in this relaitonship. This is a very basic question that no amount of scientific evidence will be able to refute.

As such, I will continue to take the Bible seriously as it is supposed to be taken seriously. If you wish to engage in name-calling and label me as ignorant, then we can cross intellectual swords if you like.

• Liberian

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Regarding the mind-body question, I submit to you that if our minds are solely the result of the motions of the molecules in our brains, then rational thought is impossible. The only relationship between the thoughts in our minds and the external world is cause and effect–the fact that the molecules in our brains are moving in a certain way; there is certainly nothing as esoteric as truth or falsehood in this relaitonship. This is a very basic question that no amount of scientific evidence will be able to refute.

Good point!