G
- Status
N
ngill09
Guest
Ah, but do we have reason to believe that the people who wrote the Bible, who lacked a proper understanding of science, had a proper understanding of spirituality?
B
buffalo
Guest
They had a good start as:
*]The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
*] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
*] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
*] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
*] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
*] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
*] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
*] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) **
] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.) **
] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.) **
] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) **
] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) **
*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’m thinking that for their time and age their spirituality was good and of God, but that perhaps our spirituality itself has progressed, culminating in the teachings of Jesus, who gave us much better understanding of the scriptures, and went beyond to a much more compassionate and merciful religion (but also a spirituality in the Christian era that recognizes our sins as being more serious and harmful than in the earlier pre-Christian era, and thus our need for redemption and help along the way much greater).
One of the interesting things is I think it is only because of the transcendent (and immanent) God of the early Hebrew scriptures that over the course of history science was later able to develop at all. A God who created nature and the laws of nature, but was not in nature, or a part of it – as in animism in which trees have spirits, etc, or polytheism in which gods and goddess are conceived of in the image of humans – anthropomorphic deities. God as “Totally Other,” as Jewish theologican Martin Buber said (JPII quoting him during a Christmas Mass). An anthropomorphic deity is quite different from “God created man in His image.” Which still has plenty of mystery to it re who/what is God…and we with our finite and limited minds will never know until we get to heaven. No one can see God and live.
So while they may not have known nuclear physics in the day of Adam or even Abraham, they were on the track that would eventually lead to modern day scientific knowledge, and also on the track to the spirituality found in the Catholic Church of today – a dynamic spirituality, capable of addressing modern issues that arise in a godly and goodly fashion, with guidance from the Holy Spirit.
E
edwest2
Guest
Why is this so important? Science is flawed. It is not all-knowing, but God is. I will not elevate science above God. I will follow Church teaching which tells me the Church is unsure about the age of the earth. Meanwhile, I expect to see many, many more threads exactly like this one and the only reason? FULL COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY. That is the goal.
Peace,
Ed
G
Gricken
Guest
What does that even mean?
P
pocohombre
Guest
So if I imagine a pink elephant then one must exist? Now we do have imaginations. Evolution is imagination lent to observations. Not sure it is science. Because a monkey has some human characteristics I deduct we derived from them? Again, the observation is correct but the theory is imagination if wrong. Don’t get your neccessity of God’s nature an easier step to than his design.Neccessity imposes restrictions on creativity I suppose, unless you mean more than one neccessity is possible, which would then be a misnomer. I agree it is not good to diss observation, the science of observation .But beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That is any deductions based on the observation is subject at some point to hypothesize, and usually where you sit on a subject is where you stand, that is subjectivity comes in, and I do believe that fear (recognition) of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom. That is that there is contrary wisdom and knowledge that shall be shown to be faulty, even humorous(remember when the status quo gave us the flat earth)…As far as books, I agree there are two, but it is not either or but both. I would not limit God in His ability to stoop down to our level and still speak truth scientifically. I would not limit early man to stupidity either .Who knows, in his perfect state, before the fall and diminishing there after, maybe he used more than 10% percent of his brain as science tells us we use today. But both books agree, and eventually we see it more and more…Something can have a wrong foundation(darwin/marx/freud- some of their stuff) but still be quite powerful. Even the Egyptian wizards could turn a stick into a serpent, but…
A
Aloysium
Guest
In my opinion, the earth is old,
but i don’t know what that means,
given that man’s been around for only so long and
human time is what I understand.
I mean, if we weren’t around as frames of reference,
as known then by only God and the angels,
what would the difference be between
a billionth of a second and a billion seconds?
At any rate, science =/= physical reality.
Science emerges from our relationship with the earth;
microwave background or blue heavenly vault,
as a previous poster suggested, it’s through our imagination
that we connect to our environment.
The bottom line is, as it always has been,
what people do with the knowledge, with science that matters.
If it justifies treating other human beings as mere sacs of chemicals, it’s not a good thing
If it leads us to glorify God as Creator, it is good.
but i don’t know what that means,
given that man’s been around for only so long and
human time is what I understand.
I mean, if we weren’t around as frames of reference,
as known then by only God and the angels,
what would the difference be between
a billionth of a second and a billion seconds?
At any rate, science =/= physical reality.
Science emerges from our relationship with the earth;
microwave background or blue heavenly vault,
as a previous poster suggested, it’s through our imagination
that we connect to our environment.
The bottom line is, as it always has been,
what people do with the knowledge, with science that matters.
If it justifies treating other human beings as mere sacs of chemicals, it’s not a good thing
If it leads us to glorify God as Creator, it is good.
K
Kevin12
Guest
This is the point at which one side of the debate should have realized something and politely excused themselves from said debate. I hope they will realize this and cease the needless exercise of their fingers, lest they needlessly increase their risk of one day developing acute arthritis.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually I consider them quite intelligent, and I’m beginning to think we moderns are losing it…maybe pollution we have created is lowering our ability to think and reason. Or it could be the boob tube or iPads, etc. I do know, as my ability to think and reason fade evermore away, it’s our own doing…
B
bsroufek
Guest
A couple of times, now, I have mentioned that the ages of Adam and his sons down to Joseph son of Israel are stated in Genesis, even how old they were when they had their
first son. This derives a history of about 6000 years.
No one has yet commented on these ages in lineage in Genesis so far. Do you believe they
were “invented” or do you believe they are factual?
first son. This derives a history of about 6000 years.
No one has yet commented on these ages in lineage in Genesis so far. Do you believe they
were “invented” or do you believe they are factual?
B
buffalo
Guest
And now along comes the Planck Probe data that show the universe is not isotropic or homogenous as expected. Seems like there are more epicycles being created.
Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil
“Cosmologists can’t pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck’s map has also confirmed the presence of a **mysterious alignment of the universe. The “axis of evil” **was identified by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck’s detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP’s, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. “We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features,” said Efstathiou.
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter,
because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.4 Lawrence Krauss
Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil
“Cosmologists can’t pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck’s map has also confirmed the presence of a **mysterious alignment of the universe. The “axis of evil” **was identified by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck’s detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP’s, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. “We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features,” said Efstathiou.
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter,
because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.4 Lawrence Krauss
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Just tried it - is working.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Like the second law of thermodynamics for the brain/gene pool
P
pocohombre
Guest
Believe them factual.Key word is believe.
N
ngill09
Guest
I’m going to go with invented.
E
edwest2
Guest
They are factual.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
T
tabycat
Guest
Most of the stars that we see are not ‘first generation’ stars’ like our star.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
if the earth was younger than an old earth, what would you expect to find? and can we find it?
- Status