The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[buffalo]

geoformo, Karl Rahner has written some profound theology on the Incarnation as God taking on the entire evolutionary order:

“In our context it is especially worthy of note that the point at which God in a final self-communication irrevocably and definitively lays hold on the totality of the reality created by him is characterized not as spirit but as flesh. It is this which authorizes the Christian to integrate the history of salvation into the history of the cosmos, even when myriad questions remain unanswered.”

    ― *Natural Science and Reasonable Faith

StAnastasia

A Critical Examination of the Theology of Karl Rahner, S.J.

…Frequently Karl Rahner dodged censure and disciplinary measures throughout his career by couching his radically anti-Catholic vision in obfuscated language. Rahner not only invented a new theology, he invented a new language to describe it. It became in effect a “coded” language, understandable only to initiates.

This book in many and important points breaks the code and lays bare the true meaning of Rahner’s bizarre theories. Of critical importance, the book does not simply reflect the personal interpretations of the author; Mr. McCarthy supports his analysis by extensive quotations from Rahner himself, and from several of his closest associates.

McCarthy’s work shows how Rahner progresses from a basic assumption about human nature, an assumption that effectively denies Original Sin, and leads to his further interpretations regarding personal and private Revelation, the nature of Jesus Christ, the “demythologizing” of the Catholic Faith, his view of a “declericalized” future church, leading to what is perhaps the culmination of his theology, his idea of the “anonymous Christian,” whereby every human being regardless of his beliefs or religion, even avowed enemies of Christ are, nevertheless, to be considered “Christians.”

 

[StAnastasia]

A Critical Examination of the Theology of Karl Rahner, S.J.

Ah – a right-wing nutcase!

 

[DallasTexas]

2Tim:3:1-5 ‘‘The dangers of the last days’’ You may be quite sure that in the last days there are going to be some difficult times. People will be self-centred and grasping; boastful, arrogant and rude; disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious; heartless and unappeasable; they will be slanderers, profligates, savages and enemies of everything that is good; they will be treacherous and reckless and demented by pride, preferring their own pleasure to God. They will keep up the outward appearence of religion but will have rejected the inner power of it. Have nothing to do with People like that.
1John:1-18 ''Children, these are the last days; you were told that the antichrist would come, and now several antichrists have already appeared; we know from this that these are the last days. Those rivals of Christ came out of our own number but they had never really belonged. 1John:22: The man who denies that Jesus is the Christ—he is the liar he is antichrist, and he is denying the Father as well as the Son [freemasons] check out John Salzas website for more info on how freemasons do this practice as he used to be one.

Thank you for your post.

Freemasonry does not deny Jesus is the Christ.

Thank you

 

[Luke65]

Really, Luke65, did you want to go there and bring this stuff up? Do you know how fraudulent the YEC “Creation science” work is? How about you check out what true, honest Christian scientists say about the age of the Earth and radiometric dating techniques at asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm. Do you think that scientists from around the globe went to a hidden meeting and said, “We have to make up this technique called radiometric dating that will allow us to quantify an old Earth and make it irrational to reject evolution,” and that every scientist the world over is trying to feed this lie to everyone?

I think they do what you just did - ignore any evidence that conflicts with your theory. All of the things I listed are facts, and by the way, they are all from studies by mainstream science.

Your ignorance on radiometric dating techniques is revealing, my friend. We can only use radiocarbon dating for extremely young materials (geologically speaking), as the half-life is 5730 years, and so is only effective for dating materials younger than at most 75,000 years (anything older than that will have gone through so many half-lives that the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes will be too small to quantify with certainty). Very, very little in the fossil record (or diamonds) can be used by this method. Which is why there are many more techniques with much older half-lives that, coincidentally, validate one another (as opposed to relying on one technique) on much older dates.

Well, apparently I know more about it than you. Diamonds have in fact been carbon-dated, and yielded dates of up to 80,000 years old. Didn’t you even bother to check it out before you commented? Here’s an article that gives a short summary. You’ll see that mainstream scientists did several experiments that confirm the results, but it was YEC scientists who came up with the idea and were the first to carbon-date diamonds.

The problem is that mainstream scientists can’t think outside of the box that they’ve put themselves in. Why if it weren’t for the fact that they had to break a T-Rex bone in half in order to move it, we still might not know that there is soft tissue and blood cells, etc. in them bones! Nobody thought to look! But did Dr. Schweitzer think to carbon-date those bones, you know, just to make sure they’re not younger than she knows they are? Apparently not. But that’s how “science” works, doncha know? Why do science when you already know the truth? On the other hand, one incredulous scientist, when asked what evidence would convince him that this was dino tissue, simply replied: “None.” Because its impossible that its 70 or 80 million years old - only “rational” people would believe that!

And if you notice the language written there, the literal sense is the meaning of Scripture and discovered by exegesis. If Moses were here today, do you think he would say that when he wrote that the sun was created on the 4th day (Gen. 1:16), that he meant that three 24-hour days had already passed, and that he was meaning to write historically when vegetation (which relies on the sun, as do most other living organisms) was created before the sun (Gen. 1:11)? Give the sacred writer a little bit of credit, he was no dummy, but your acceptance of the extreme literal interpretation makes him look a fool.

Why do you guys say things like that? Don’t you realize you’re calling all of the Church Fathers and Doctors, and most Christians in the first 1900 years of the Church “dummies”? Early in the Church this was pointed out, and answered:

St. Basil the Great: “Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun’s heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose.” (Hexaemeron V, 1)

You should read Basil’s Hexaemeron, its really the standard for what the Church taught on Creation. St. Thomas Aquinas summed up what all the Fathers (and others) taught on the six days here (65-74). And he said:

"Objection 2. Further, it is light that distinguishes night from day, and this is effected by the sun, which is recorded as having been made on the fourth day. Therefore the production of light could not have been on the first day.

Reply to Objection 2. …I answer, then, with Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), that the light was the sun’s light, formless as yet, being already the solar substance, and possessing illuminative power in a general way, to which was afterwards added the special and determinative power required to produce determinate effects."

And St. Augustine, whose last word on Creation was in the following book, said this:

“We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.” (The City of God, XI, 7)

 

[Luke65]

Cont.

And for a complete look at what the Fathers and Doctors taught on the six days read this article. And getting back to Moses, if he didn’t think they were 24 hour days then what did he think this meant:

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:8-11)

So they should work for six eons and then rest for one eon? There isn’t even a hint that Moses understood it to mean anything other than six 24 hour days. And why would God say “there was evening and morning” if He meant anything other than a normal 24 day? That Hebrew expression, “evening and morning”, always refers to a single day. And when yom is used with a number, e.g. “six days”, it always means normal 24 hour days. The case is overwhelming.

But again, all of this ignores the many other scriptural proofs that Evolution is a lie - starting in the beginning: “according to their kinds”. And that phrase is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 10 signifies the perfection of God’s law, e.g., the Ten Commandments. So, that life should reproduce “according to their kinds” is the law of nature.

I have no doubt about the chastisement in your final quote from 2 Thessalonians not being metaphorical, but Paul was speaking in reference to those “who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” Yes, I am a theistic evolutionist, but I believe in Jesus (the Truth) and do not delight in wickedness. Explain to me how this quote refers directly to evolution and an old Earth, instead of one’s moral actions and the state of one’s soul with regard to their belief in Jesus?

Well, you hit on a key point there - the caveat “but have delighted in wickedness”. No one is condemned for believing that they are descended from apes, but they will be condemned if they behave like apes! Hence, the caveat. The Holy Spirit and the Church of Christ are on the same page. But how is this all related? Well, you’d have to look at the whole gamut of end time prophecies. But let’s just look at a few, starting with this one. Its about the Antichrist, whom St. Paul refers to as “the lawless one”. But notice he also says, “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work”. Also, St. John says, “the spirit of the antichrist… is already in the world” (1 John 4:3). So that’s the first indicator not to limit this prophecy to the time of Antichrist himself. Also notice that Paul is speaking in the future tense, and then he switches to the past tense: “they refused to love the truth” - another reason not to limit it. And you might want to keep in mind the example that the Jews provide us. They deny many Messianic prophecies saying we take them out of context. And that’s the best reason not to limit the prophetic power of the Spirit.

Now, if you look at Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24), you’ll see that the “tribulation” is a lot longer than the three and a half years of Antichrist. And many of our Saints prophesied the 20th century would be the time of the tribulation. This prophecy from St. Bernadette of Lourdes (1858) might interest you. And St. Paul also prophesied that “the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). So what are these “doctrines of demons” that will be taught in “later times” and be the cause of apostasy? Maybe this will help:

“When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle.” (Rev. 20:7-8)

Our Lady of La Salette (1846): “In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little, even in those dedicated to GOD. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls. Evil books will be abundant on earth and the spirits of darkness will spread everywhere a universal slackening in all that concerns the service of GOD.”

Interesting timing.

Now, my brother, I’ve given you an abundance of treasures. So don’t be stiff-necked and say that I’ve taken any prophecies out of context. Or that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. And don’t mock the Faith of our Fathers. As long as you refuse to love the truth, God will not reveal the truth to you. As long as you rely on your own natural reason, instead of relying on the grace of God, you will not be able to see the truth. Believe the Word of God so that you may understand - its all true. God bless.

 

[reggieM]

The problem is that mainstream scientists can’t think outside of the box that they’ve put themselves in. Why if it weren’t for the fact that they had to break a T-Rex bone in half in order to move it, we still might not know that there is soft tissue and blood cells, etc. in them bones! Nobody thought to look! But did Dr. Schweitzer think to carbon-date those bones, you know, just to make sure they’re not younger than she knows they are? Apparently not. But that’s how “science” works, doncha know? Why do science when you already know the truth? On the other hand, one incredulous scientist, when asked what evidence would convince him that this was dino tissue, simply replied: “None.” Because its impossible that its 70 or 80 million years old - only “rational” people would believe that!

A more courageous researcher validated that there was soft tissue in the bones and it could not have been preserved in that condition for more than 20,000 years. The only evolutionist response I’ve seen for that was that it was an “error in dating”. Well, it was only off by 79,980,000 years. The response is very similar to the finding of modern-looking shore-bird fossils in strata claimed to be older than the first bird dinosaurs – namely, silence and confusion. Maybe those birds evolved from flying insects. It’s a lot safer to think inside the evolutionary box.

 

[Stephentlig]

Thank you for your post.

Freemasonry does not deny Jesus is the Christ.

Thank you

I did not say freemasonry does not deny Jesus as the Christ, how dare you.

freemasonry does indeed deny The son, if you wish to see how freemasonry has been exposed and is wrong, just take a look at John Salzas website, he used to be one.
scripturecatholic.com/freemasonry_qa.html

however if you wish to further this discussion take it up with John salza, his e-mail is on the website.

just a little shout out to all you lads still floggin the dead horse, IT ENDED ON PAGE 13
cough

Good night.

 

[Luke65]

geoformo, Karl Rahner has written some profound theology on the Incarnation as God taking on the entire evolutionary order:

“In our context it is especially worthy of note that the point at which God in a final self-communication irrevocably and definitively lays hold on the totality of the reality created by him is characterized not as spirit but as flesh. It is this which authorizes the Christian to integrate the history of salvation into the history of the cosmos, even when myriad questions remain unanswered.”

	― *Natural Science and Reasonable Faith

buffalo;5250996:

Frequently Karl Rahner

dodged censure and disciplinary measures throughout his career by couching his radically anti-Catholic vision in obfuscated language…

“obfuscated language”? You mean like “is characterized not as spirit but as flesh”? How about “is realized not as spirit but as flesh”? Or actualized? Or accomplished? How about the Word of God actually did become flesh? Crack the code! Thanks for that, Buffalo.

 

[Luke65]

I did not say freemasonry does not deny Jesus as the Christ, how dare you.

freemasonry does indeed deny The son, if you wish to see how freemasonry has been exposed and is wrong, just take a look at John Salzas website, he used to be one.
scripturecatholic.com/freemasonry_qa.html

however if you wish to further this discussion take it up with John salza, his e-mail is on the website.

just a little shout out to all you lads still floggin the dead horse, IT ENDED ON PAGE 13
cough

Good night.

Yes, that poor horse is lucky to be alive!

 

[reggieM]

“obfuscated language”? You mean like “is characterized not as spirit but as flesh”? How about “is realized not as spirit but as flesh”? Or actualized? Or accomplished? How about the Word of God actually did become flesh? Crack the code! Thanks for that, Buffalo.

How about “*God … lays hold on the totality of the reality created”? *

 

[Luke65]

How about “*God … lays hold *on the totality of the reality created”?

Good catch. I guess the evolutionary process was out of control until Jesus of Nazareth assured us that God is with us.

 

[geoformeo]

I think they do what you just did - ignore any evidence that conflicts with your theory. All of the things I listed are facts, and by the way, they are all from studies by mainstream science.

I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t know science very well. One of the greatest accomplishments a scientist can make is the debunking of a theory previously held to be valid. Make no mistake–if someone can produce a scientifically valid case for a young Earth and special creation of all life on Earth, then you would have scientists jumping on that bandwagon left and right (myself included). Science is a means by which we search for natural, physical truth, and scientists go where the evidence leads, even if it is against convention. And no, the things you listed are not facts. The reproducibility of findings is paramount in science. If 400 scientists radiometrically date a diamond, and 399 of them find the diamond to be 2 billion years old, while 1 (who just happens to be part of the Institute for Creation Research) finds it 80,000 years old, what do you think the consensus should be?

Well, apparently I know more about it than you. Diamonds have in fact been carbon-dated, and yielded dates of up to 80,000 years old. Didn’t you even bother to check it out before you commented? Here’s an article that gives a short summary. You’ll see that mainstream scientists did several experiments that confirm the results, but it was YEC scientists who came up with the idea and were the first to carbon-date diamonds.

I have no problem with diamonds being as young as 80,000 years old–they may be forming even now in the deep recesses of the mantle where the temperatures and pressures are just right for their formation. That finding in no way invalidates the acceptance of an old Earth. What you failed to take into account is that even in this biased experiment, the calculated ages were still over 13 times older than you claim the Earth is. To give you a piece of advice, if I may, the AIG website is the last place you should go for authentic scientific research. Try a few peer-reviewed journals.

The problem is that mainstream scientists can’t think outside of the box that they’ve put themselves in. Why if it weren’t for the fact that they had to break a T-Rex bone in half in order to move it, we still might not know that there is soft tissue and blood cells, etc. in them bones! Nobody thought to look! But did Dr. Schweitzer think to carbon-date those bones, you know, just to make sure they’re not younger than she knows they are? Apparently not. But that’s how “science” works, doncha know? Why do science when you already know the truth? On the other hand, one incredulous scientist, when asked what evidence would convince him that this was dino tissue, simply replied: “None.” Because its impossible that its 70 or 80 million years old - only “rational” people would believe that!

Guess what? Dr. Schweitzer is a God-fearing Christian who has no beef with an old Earth or evolution! And it is through her research that we now know that T-Rex’s most closely genetically related modern relative is the chicken, lending credibility to the hypothesis that some of the dinosaurs evolved into modern birds.

You should be ashamed of yourself for judging people and the work they do in matters in which you have zero authority or credibility. Have you been on a dinosaur excavation before? I have. And I have broken dinosaur bones open before, too, and guess what? No soft tissue. The T-Rex soft tissue find was, and is still, an anomalous result. But it does not discredit the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that the bones came from 65-70 million year old rock. It only means that we do not fully understand the processes of fossilization yet.

Why do you guys say things like that? Don’t you realize you’re calling all of the Church Fathers and Doctors, and most Christians in the first 1900 years of the Church “dummies”?

Do remember that these, as you mention, were Fathers and Doctors of the Church, not phD’s of science. Come on. How many people need the Genesis story to keep them from worshiping the sun? Maybe that line of thinking was necessary at St. Basil’s time, but it is not today. And St. Thomas Aquinas’s “objection” sounds very similar to the modern “solar nebula hypothesis,” which describes the origin of the sun and planets out of an original solar nebula. These individuals were not dummies, of course, but their objections were theological, not scientific. Had modern science been there in those days, do you really think they would have said the same things? No, because they understood God as Truth, who encompasses both natural and spiritual truth, and would have used their God-given intellect to harmonize the two.

 

[buffalo]

I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t know science very well. One of the greatest accomplishments a scientist can make is the debunking of a theory previously held to be valid. Make no mistake–if someone can produce a scientifically valid case for a young Earth and special creation of all life on Earth, then you would have scientists jumping on that bandwagon left and right (myself included). Science is a means by which we search for natural, physical truth, and scientists go where the evidence leads, even if it is against convention. And no, the things you listed are not facts. The reproducibility of findings is paramount in science. If 400 scientists radiometrically date a diamond, and 399 of them find the diamond to be 2 billion years old, while 1 (who just happens to be part of the Institute for Creation Research) finds it 80,000 years old, what do you think the consensus should be?

I have no problem with diamonds being as young as 80,000 years old–they may be forming even now in the deep recesses of the mantle where the temperatures and pressures are just right for their formation. That finding in no way invalidates the acceptance of an old Earth. What you failed to take into account is that even in this biased experiment, the calculated ages were still over 13 times older than you claim the Earth is. To give you a piece of advice, if I may, the AIG website is the last place you should go for authentic scientific research. Try a few peer-reviewed journals.

Guess what? Dr. Schweitzer is a God-fearing Christian who has no beef with an old Earth or evolution! And it is through her research that we now know that T-Rex’s most closely genetically related modern relative is the chicken, lending credibility to the hypothesis that some of the dinosaurs evolved into modern birds.

You should be ashamed of yourself for judging people and the work they do in matters in which you have zero authority or credibility. Have you been on a dinosaur excavation before? I have. And I have broken dinosaur bones open before, too, and guess what? No soft tissue. The T-Rex soft tissue find was, and is still, an anomalous result. But it does not discredit the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that the bones came from 65-70 million year old rock. It only means that we do not fully understand the processes of fossilization yet.

Do remember that these, as you mention, were Fathers and Doctors of the Church, not phD’s of science. Come on. How many people need the Genesis story to keep them from worshiping the sun? Maybe that line of thinking was necessary at St. Basil’s time, but it is not today. And St. Thomas Aquinas’s “objection” sounds very similar to the modern “solar nebula hypothesis,” which describes the origin of the sun and planets out of an original solar nebula. These individuals were not dummies, of course, but their objections were theological, not scientific. Had modern science been there in those days, do you really think they would have said the same things? No, because they understood God as Truth, who encompasses both natural and spiritual truth, and would have used their God-given intellect to harmonize the two.

Actually science does not evolve. It undergoes paradigm shifts. Usually a die off of scientists who grew up with a certain view is required before science actually changes. This is done by the younger scientists.

 

[StAnastasia]

“obfuscated language”? You mean like “is characterized not as spirit but as flesh”? How about “is realized not as spirit but as flesh”? Or actualized? Or accomplished? How about the Word of God actually did become flesh? Crack the code! Thanks for that, Buffalo.

Are there too many syllables in these words? “Characterized” is a perfectly good word.

 

[Luke65]

Are there too many syllables in these words? “Characterized” is a perfectly good word.

If you’re an Arianist.

 

[budgie2]

I can’t say I’m an expert on Evolution and only know what I’ve seen on tv. I think Darwin put an emphasis on the supremacy of the human brain and it is this which makes us greater than other species. This is a materialist philosophy. As a Catholic I believe that the most important thing that distinguishes me from animals is my soul. Darwin was really influenced by Descartes, one of the founders of the scientific method (Discours sur la Methode) and famous for saying “I think therefore I am”. Sounds great but means that a person whose brain is not working or whose brain is not developed is not fully human and therefore can lead to abortion of babies before their brain is fully developed although the neuron system is one of the first things to separate and also questions about euthanasia for brain dead people and the mentally ill or mentally handicapped. I have never studied Darwin but I’ve studied Descartes and wasn’t keen.

 

[geoformeo]

And getting back to Moses, if he didn’t think they were 24 hour days then what did he think this meant:

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:8-11)

So they should work for six eons and then rest for one eon? There isn’t even a hint that Moses understood it to mean anything other than six 24 hour days. And why would God say “there was evening and morning” if He meant anything other than a normal 24 day? That Hebrew expression, “evening and morning”, always refers to a single day. And when yom is used with a number, e.g. “six days”, it always means normal 24 hour days. The case is overwhelming.

For a supposed biblical scholar, you don’t seem to know much about the principle of divine accommodation. God spoke through Moses in ways that were intelligible to the people of the time, and this “baby talk” conveyed truth through the use of allegory. (If you don’t have kids, you probably won’t understand this as well.) It might help to ask yourself, why didn’t God talk about DNA or relativity or quantum physics to the ancient peoples? Or is that stuff all defunct science as well?

Not even a hint about anything other than the literal 6 24 hour days, huh? How about the fact that Moses put in 2 creation stories that directly contradict each other if taken literally (man created last in the first story which is Genesis 1, and man created first in second story in Genesis 2). Might it not have been the case that Moses was taking a figurative story that everybody knew well, and applying the six day theme in a practical sense as part of the giving of the law to establish Saturday as the sabbath and a day each week to be dedicated to the Lord?

But again, all of this ignores the many other scriptural proofs that Evolution is a lie - starting in the beginning: “according to their kinds”. And that phrase is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 10 signifies the perfection of God’s law, e.g., the Ten Commandments. So, that life should reproduce “according to their kinds” is the law of nature.

Wow, do you really know that little about evolution by natural selection? Do you think that evolution says that new species are created from the interbreeding of different species? You’ve got a lot of research to do, if that is the case. Of course life should reproduce “according to their kinds,” and in most instances we see in nature, interspecies breeding produces sterile offspring. Therefore, bestiality is considered a taboo and forbidden. If that is the best “scriptural proof that evolution is a lie,” that you have, then I’m afraid you have no leg to stand on whatsoever.

Well, you hit on a key point there - the caveat “but have delighted in wickedness”. No one is condemned for believing that they are descended from apes, but they will be condemned if they behave like apes! Hence, the caveat. The Holy Spirit and the Church of Christ are on the same page. But how is this all related? Well, you’d have to look at the whole gamut of end time prophecies.

Of course the Holy Spirit (which guides evolution) and the Church of Christ are on the same page, because truth is truth and cannot contradict itself. I wholeheartedly agree that no one is condemned for believing that they are descended from apes, but will be condemned for behaving like apes. Hence we have terms that describe certain actions as “inhumane,” because unlike other animals we are guided by a moral compass.

Now you bring up end time prophecies? Really? Since when has the Church formally declared that these are the end times? Haven’t we heard the same things over the past 2,000 years? Your arguments (for YEC and the end times) have a very Protestant look to them. Do you know the Church’s official position on these things, and about private revelation? I’m beginning to worry about you, Luke65.

Now, my brother, I’ve given you an abundance of treasures. So don’t be stiff-necked and say that I’ve taken any prophecies out of context. Or that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. And don’t mock the Faith of our Fathers. As long as you refuse to love the truth, God will not reveal the truth to you. As long as you rely on your own natural reason, instead of relying on the grace of God, you will not be able to see the truth. Believe the Word of God so that you may understand - its all true. God bless.

I thank you for the treasures. However, I’m not being stiff-necked, I’m being honest when I say that you have taken prophecies and other scriptural citations out of context and that there is no scientific evidence for a young Earth. I don’t mock the Faith of our Fathers, because that is my Faith that I live and love. I do not refuse to love the truth, I seek the Truth, in all its forms, because Jesus is the Truth, and I have been very blessed that God has revealed the truth to me. By the grace of God I have been given the ability to use my natural reason, and I do not take for granted that “To whom much has been given, much will be required.”

Again, Luke65, I respect your position regarding evolution and the age of the Earth, though I do not agree with it, and the Church says that I am at liberty to do so (just as you are at liberty to disagree with mine).

Have a great Sunday, and may God bless you too!

 

[buffalo]

For a supposed biblical scholar, you don’t seem to know much about the principle of divine accommodation. God spoke through Moses in ways that were intelligible to the people of the time, and this “baby talk” conveyed truth through the use of allegory. (If you don’t have kids, you probably won’t understand this as well.) It might help to ask yourself, why didn’t God talk about DNA or relativity or quantum physics to the ancient peoples? Or is that stuff all defunct science as well?

Not even a hint about anything other than the literal 6 24 hour days, huh? How about the fact that Moses put in 2 creation stories that directly contradict each other if taken literally (man created last in the first story which is Genesis 1, and man created first in second story in Genesis 2). Might it not have been the case that Moses was taking a figurative story that everybody knew well, and applying the six day theme in a practical sense as part of the giving of the law to establish Saturday as the sabbath and a day each week to be dedicated to the Lord?

Wow, do you really know that little about evolution by natural selection? Do you think that evolution says that new species are created from the interbreeding of different species? You’ve got a lot of research to do, if that is the case. Of course life should reproduce “according to their kinds,” and in most instances we see in nature, interspecies breeding produces sterile offspring. Therefore, bestiality is considered a taboo and forbidden. If that is the best “scriptural proof that evolution is a lie,” that you have, then I’m afraid you have no leg to stand on whatsoever.

Of course the Holy Spirit (which guides evolution) and the Church of Christ are on the same page, because truth is truth and cannot contradict itself. I wholeheartedly agree that no one is condemned for believing that they are descended from apes, but will be condemned for behaving like apes. Hence we have terms that describe certain actions as “inhumane,” because unlike other animals we are guided by a moral compass.

Now you bring up end time prophecies? Really? Since when has the Church formally declared that these are the end times? Haven’t we heard the same things over the past 2,000 years? Your arguments (for YEC and the end times) have a very Protestant look to them. Do you know the Church’s official position on these things, and about private revelation? I’m beginning to worry about you, Luke65.

I thank you for the treasures. However, I’m not being stiff-necked, I’m being honest when I say that you have taken prophecies and other scriptural citations out of context and that there is no scientific evidence for a young Earth. I don’t mock the Faith of our Fathers, because that is my Faith that I live and love. I do not refuse to love the truth, I seek the Truth, in all its forms, because Jesus is the Truth, and I have been very blessed that God has revealed the truth to me. By the grace of God I have been given the ability to use my natural reason, and I do not take for granted that “To whom much has been given, much will be required.”

Again, Luke65, I respect your position regarding evolution and the age of the Earth, though I do not agree with it, and the Church says that I am at liberty to do so (just as you are at liberty to disagree with mine).

Have a great Sunday, and may God bless you too!

Bingo! That is exactly why Genesis is written in a simple way. It’s truth is understood by all men at all times. That is its strength.