To non-Catholic friends - Why is "literal" creation so important?

[Salvatore123]

Having married a Southern Baptist (who, on her own, converted to Catholicism), I have always been around and confronted by the most hard-core fundamentalist “Christians” I have ever met. I put quotes around “Christians” - not to denigrate true non-Catholic Christians who try to follow Christ’s teachings - but to characterize those Southern Baptists I met at my wife’s former church where their CHURCH is segregated and the local residents pooled their money together to build a non-denominational school that is also segregated based on the fact they accept no money from any governmental body.

If any non-Catholic Christians can answer these (what I consider) simple questions, I would very much appreciate the effort:

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?
2. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?
3. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.
4. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

At least from my perspective, I really don’t care HOW I came to be. What is important for me is that I came to be because of GOD and no one else, and I am perfectly happy to allow this to remain a mystery to me as to how it was done, as that “how” will not change the way I act if I want my soul to experience heaven.

Thank you in advance for any responses.

 

[smitmi03]

I honestly have no idea. I accept that God used evolution as a tool for creation. I have always found it rather odd that humans were created last in the biblical account. Could be a primitive understanding of evolution, but that is another debate. (Although the two conflicting accounts contradicts this conclusion) Besides the creation of something from nothing gives God power.

I thought about trying to see if I could even give the effort of answering your questions. I cannot, though the more extreme websites suggest that “New Age” Science (science in general," the “Catholic” Church (or any church that isn’t “born again”), and Harry Potter are conspiring to lessen the power of God and defile Christianity or something along those lines.

I hope you get some better answers.-Mike

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Having married a Southern Baptist (who, on her own, converted to Catholicism), I have always been around and confronted by the most hard-core fundamentalist “Christians” I have ever met. I put quotes around “Christians” - not to denigrate true non-Catholic Christians who try to follow Christ’s teachings - but to characterize those Southern Baptists I met at my wife’s former church where their CHURCH is segregated and the local residents pooled their money together to build a non-denominational school that is also segregated based on the fact they accept no money from any governmental body.

If any non-Catholic Christians can answer these (what I consider) simple questions, I would very much appreciate the effort:

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?
2. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?
3. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.
4. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

At least from my perspective, I really don’t care HOW I came to be. What is important for me is that I came to be because of GOD and no one else, and I am perfectly happy to allow this to remain a mystery to me as to how it was done, as that “how” will not change the way I act if I want my soul to experience heaven.

Thank you in advance for any responses.

In light of your comment, how do you interpret this biblical passage?

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Rom. 5:12-14)

 

[Roy5]

Most Protestants I know are in mainline churches - Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, American Baptist, etc. - and they strike me as far more open-minded than most Southern Baptists, but also of most Roman Catholics I encounter here on CAF. They certainly don’t take the first eleven chapters of Genesis literally, and many of them are skeptical about many other parts of the Bible and actually look upon Catholicism as promoting doctrines as alien in today’s world as the silly notion that the world is 5000 years old.

 For example, such key teachings of Catholicism as transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, indulgences, the power of a priest to forgive sins, miracles attributed to saints, Papal infallibility, the whole notion of one true church - all these and other central doctrines of Catholicism strike millions of mainline Protestants as on the same level as literal belief in the creation as recorded in Genesis. Most of them seem to have serious trouble with original sin, too, which is usually traced to the fall of Adam and Eve. 

 Just the other day, a Protestant was joking after he had read somewhere about all the saints who are said to have levitated. Padre Pio, he laughed, both levitated and bilocated. Such aspects of Catholicism are widely viewed outside the church as superstitions and/or pagan influences that built up within Catholicism over the centuries. 

 So, don't assume that most Protestants insist upon the literal creation story. There is a vast Protestant literature known as 'higher criticism' that subjects the scriptures to rather intense study, dissection, and often rejection of this or that Biblical account.

 

[scottm]

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?

Baptists have only the text of Bible. Nothing else. They have no binding creed. They have no binding commentary. They have no historic tradition. They have no apostolic lineage. They have nothing except the naked text of the Bible. The naked words in the Bible, on their surface, are of a young Earth. To suggest any other reading is to impose something foreign on them – a binding creed, a binding commentary, a tradition, a something. You’re imposing something upon them that they have never had before, and it will necessarily shake their world.

1. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?

Because it necessarily and immediately negates the naked words of Genesis!

1. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.

Huh? There is only one creation account in the first three chapters of Genesis. Only one. I don’t know what Bible you’re getting two from.

1. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

The same as #2 above, it negates the naked words of Genesis.

 

[Luke65]

If I may give my reasons. There are two main reasons…

In light of your comment, how do you interpret this biblical passage?

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Rom. 5:12-14)

That would be one of them. Great quote, brother!

So, don’t assume that most Protestants insist upon the literal creation story. There is a vast Protestant literature known as ‘higher criticism’ that subjects the scriptures to rather intense study, dissection, and often rejection of this or that Biblical account.

And there we see the other reason. Once you reject the first 11 chapters of the Bible, it’s a short step to rejecting any other passage you don’t like. This is a grave sin against the Holy Spirit, the Author of the Sacred Scriptures. A sin that many never recover from. It is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you, as our Lord warned (Luke 12:10). May God bless all who have the faith of a little child in His Word!

 

[Salvatore123]

scottm,

I “got” my reference from every version of the Bible I own (which are quite a few).

TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF CREATION appear in Genesis.

Please read it so that you can see I was not making that up . . .

It is one of the primary reasons why most theologians are beginning to doubt that Moses wrote the entire Petatuach by himself.

 

[scottm]

scottm,

I “got” my reference from every version of the Bible I own (which are quite a few).

TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF CREATION appear in Genesis.

Please read it so that you can see I was not making that up . . .

It is one of the primary reasons why most theologians are beginning to doubt that Moses wrote the entire Petatuach by himself.

No you didn’t. There is only one creation story in Genesis, and this as obvious as lava is hot.

 

[Salvatore123]

Scott,

You REALLY do not believe there are two, inconsistent biblical accounts of creation in Genesis?

In one, God created Man first, in the other, Man was created last.

As you don’t believe me, here are the relevant passages:

In Gen.1:27-29, God creates man last, after the animals.

In Gen 2:4-25, God creates man first, before the animals.

Either God created man first or not. To me, it does not matter, as God was the originator of everything.

THAT is the whole point of this thread. WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make WHEN man was made, so long as we acknowledge that God was the creator?

P.S. scott said (in quoting me):

"Quote:
4. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

The same as #2 above, it negates the naked words of Genesis."

That’s odd, considering Gen 2:8, states: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. 8*”

Seems like we come from slime afterall, if you literally interpret Genesis.

 

[scottm]

Scott,

You REALLY do not believe there are two, inconsistent biblical accounts of creation in Genesis?

In one, God created Man first, in the other, Man was created last.

As you don’t believe me, here are the relevant passages:

In Gen.1:27-29, God creates man last, after the animals.

In Gen 2:4-25, God creates man first, before the animals.

You might as well argue that 1 + 1 equals 97. That’s how absurd your statement is. Try reading Genesis without the chapter and verse markers. Just read those first couple chapters straight through, completely ignoring the chapter and verse markers. and

It’s obviously one continuous story. Just one story. The second chapter is a zoom lens. This is done in movies every week of the year yet you have never said, “Whoa, the director is starting a brand new and different story now!” while watching a movie.

 

[scottm]

That’s odd, considering Gen 2:8, states: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. 8*”

Seems like we come from slime afterall, if you literally interpret Genesis.

No we don’t. It’s verse 7, and the word is “dust,” and you know that.

 

[budgie2]

Having married a Southern Baptist (who, on her own, converted to Catholicism), I have always been around and confronted by the most hard-core fundamentalist “Christians” I have ever met. I put quotes around “Christians” - not to denigrate true non-Catholic Christians who try to follow Christ’s teachings - but to characterize those Southern Baptists I met at my wife’s former church where their CHURCH is segregated and the local residents pooled their money together to build a non-denominational school that is also segregated based on the fact they accept no money from any governmental body.

If any non-Catholic Christians can answer these (what I consider) simple questions, I would very much appreciate the effort:

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?
2. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?
3. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.
4. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

At least from my perspective, I really don’t care HOW I came to be. What is important for me is that I came to be because of GOD and no one else, and I am perfectly happy to allow this to remain a mystery to me as to how it was done, as that “how” will not change the way I act if I want my soul to experience heaven.

Thank you in advance for any responses.

It is possible that God created the Earth in 6 days as he is omnipotent and everything is possible for him. Equally it could have taken him longer. He could have created the world quickly or slowly. The fact is that we don’t know. I do believe dinosaurs are a scientific myth and a reinvention of the dragon. I don’t believe in Evolution but I believe in evolution of God’s thought.

 

[Salvatore123]

scottm,

You seem intent on provoking a fight, and that was NOT the intention of my post. Quite frankly, I grow weary of having to defend MY faith, and yet when non-Catholics ask questions that become uncomfortable, we are denigrated.

I have looked at no less than 8 Bibles, and I have seen references to the substance used by God to create man (if one believes it literally) as: dust, clay, dirt, slime of the Earth.

My point is: why does it matter WHAT was used. Of course, the question was not answered.

Regarding your statement that two accounts of creation do NOT exist, then you ignore some of the best biblical teaching on the face of the Earth. Not only are the two stories (regardless of the presence of chapter/verse numbers) present, but they are inconsistent in that man is created before certain things in one and man is created after certain things in another. To say that is not true is to simply ignore what is plainly written.

As I mentioned earlier, most biblical scholars (of high quality - not someone you would find on a strip mall or on the corner of a street screaming that everyone is going to Hell) have taken the position that Moses was NOT the sole author of the Pentateuch for several reasons.

Robert Alter (not Catholic), in his seminal study/translation “The Five Books of Moses”, specifically refers to two “creation accounts”, and points out the marked difference in writing style, syntax, sentence structure, and the more “anthropormophic” account found in the second creation account when contrasting it with the first.

If it is SO obvious, why all of the theological debate about the marked difference between the two?

Most telling is Gen 2:4, where the author, with no lead-up or preface of any kind, simply refers to “this is the book of genesis”, and then begins to recount the story of creation - as mentioned above - using an entirely different kind of style.

In addition, the most obvious reason for Moses not being the sole author of the first five books of the Bible, is the fact that accounts of Exodus took place AFTER Moses died. So, it would be difficult to comprehend Moses still writing after he was dead.

budgie,

If I misunderstood your statement, I sincerely apologize.

When you say that “dinosaurs are a scientic myth”, are you claiming that dinosaurs really did not exist? If so, do you really believe that someone went through the trouble to literally BURY under thousands and thousands of tons of dirt and rock, hoping someone might fight “fake” skeletons one day?

And what could possibly be the benefit/motive for people to “create” fake dinosaurs and then intentionally imbed them into solid rock?

To others (other than those who attempted to answer): instead of trying to answer my sincere questions (believe me - if I had wanted to ridicule you, I could have done a much better job; by that was not my intent), why meet questions with other questions, instead of simply offering an answer that does not seem particularly difficult.

Brian - instead of referring to my OP as a “comment”, would you mind answering my questions instead of quoting a biblical passage and asking ME to answer your question? I will be happy to answer your question, but I really would like to hear a non-Catholic’s responses to my questions.

I truly want to know the answers from a non-Catholic’s perspective, because as I said, it does not really matter to me HOW we came to be, as it does that GOD is the sole reason we came to be.

 

[Roy5]

Years ago, at age 13, I happened to pick up the “Age of Reason” by Tom Paine in the local library. Paine wrote the first section while in jail in Paris (as I recall), so it was not all that scholarly and I could understand it. It was then that I began to have doubts about certain parts of the Bible.

In the "Age of Reason" Paine asks: how can Moses have written the "Books of Moses" when his death and burial are recorded in Deuteronomy? And, as I recall, would Moses have written that he was the meekest (most humble) man who ever lived - words to that effect (sorry, can't quote them from memory)?

Since then, I have found great inspiration and spiritual truth and moral teaching in parts of the Bible, but I am not ready to take others parts as the 'word of God'. There simply is far too much that I can't believe. One of many examples: I cannot believe that my God, who gave us the commandment not to murder and the Sermon on the Mount, ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of such cities as Jericho and Ai and commanded Saul to slay every remaining Amalekite. That sounds more like Hitler or Stalin that the loving, forgiving Lord revealed in Christ.  And to say that we must believe it nonetheless doesn't convince me for even a moment.

 I certainly don't feel compelled as a Christian to take the Genesis creation story literally. It was a noble attempt of ancient peoples without a serious telescope, who believed the world was round and had no concept of the universe as we undestand it today, to explain how the world came about. I respect it as a myth or legend or fable, whatever, but certainly not as valid history. For Christians to insist that this story is history is absurd. Sorry. No offense intended.

 

[Cachonga]

Salvatore123:

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?

I don’t have a problem with an old earth. I can see the possibility of a large amount of time passing between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. More than enough for any “big bang”. However, I do believe that nearly 6,000 years ago, God did exactly what we see recorded in Genesis (as far as creating the plants, animals and man). Notice in vese 2 that “… the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” (RSV), so it appears that the atmosphere was thick enough to block out the sun and the earth was covered with water. I believe this because this is what Scripture tells me is true.

1. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?

It sounds like you are promoting the theory of evolution. I have noticed over the years that the word “evolution” (and related words like “evolved”) are being used when a much more appropriate word is available, that being “adaptation” (or “adapted”). Keep in mind that evolution proposes that one species arises from another species, while adaptations describe variations within a species (for example, Darwin’s finches, in spite of the great diversity among them, are still finches). Also, considering the complexity of even the simplest organism, I can’t see evolution being a viable concept for how life got started, much less developed into the wide variety of life that we see today. In short, evolution is a theory designed to remove God from His creation.

1. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.

In Genesis 1, we have the original order of creation. In Genesis 2, we see God has placed Adam in the garden, and wants to find him a helper, and so created animals from the dust (just as He created Adam), and brought them to see what Adam would name them. This is not a contradictory account of creation, but a description of God’s care and concern for Adam (and how Eve came to be). Notice, there is no mention of God creating any sea creatures or plants in this chapter (other than planting the garden).

1. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

I think this is a rewording of question 2, and I will repeat that evolution is a theory designed to remove God from His creation. If people would stop using “evolution” when they should be using “adaptation”, I think it would become clearer that evolution is not viable.

Hope this helps!

Pax!

 

[Salvatore123]

Cachonga,

Thank you for your honest replies. That is all I wanted in response to my questions.

And no, I am not promoting the theory of evolution - I would have specifically referenced Darwin if I believed in that.

To be quite honest, I really don’t know what happened. And it seems, at least to me, that it is not that important to understand how it happened, the number of days it happened, or the process used by God to make it happen. To me, the overriding point is that GOD made everything happen out of nothing. THAT is a true creation - to make something out of nothing.

 

[edwest2]

Having married a Southern Baptist (who, on her own, converted to Catholicism), I have always been around and confronted by the most hard-core fundamentalist “Christians” I have ever met. I put quotes around “Christians” - not to denigrate true non-Catholic Christians who try to follow Christ’s teachings - but to characterize those Southern Baptists I met at my wife’s former church where their CHURCH is segregated and the local residents pooled their money together to build a non-denominational school that is also segregated based on the fact they accept no money from any governmental body.

If any non-Catholic Christians can answer these (what I consider) simple questions, I would very much appreciate the effort:

1. Why is it so important that you believe the Earth is around 5000 years old?
2. Why is it so “disgusting” to wrap your head around the idea that God may have set in motion an evolution of what he originally created so that, when the appointed time came, that supernatural soul we have in man was “lit” and man became separarted from the beasts around him?
3. How do you explain two entirely different creation accounts in the same book - Genesis? Either man was created first or last - it could not have been both.
4. Why is it so repugnant to believe that man may have evolved from a lower life form, even from (the slime of the Earth), when God Himself created everything out of “nothingness”?

At least from my perspective, I really don’t care HOW I came to be. What is important for me is that I came to be because of GOD and no one else, and I am perfectly happy to allow this to remain a mystery to me as to how it was done, as that “how” will not change the way I act if I want my soul to experience heaven.

Thank you in advance for any responses.

First of all, if you don’t care about the how, why bother asking? People don’t come here to discuss the details about quantum mechanics, dark matter and electron spin, but they do desperately discuss this in order to get some sort of answer - right now. As if some sort of deadline exists. This desperate ongoing campaign has put all of the science behind human origins into question for me because it has shifted from - this is what science can demonstrate - to, this is what we believe science has demonstrated.

First, there is the Hebrew calendar, obviously not a Christian invention, that tells us the current year is 5770. It dates from one year before Creation. Coincidence? Worth ignoring? If so, why?

Science cannot demonstrate in any way, shape or form, that the “soul” exists. There is no way to demonstrate its existence, so science cannot study it or comment on it. If you have some peer reviewed reference, I’d like to see it, but barring that, the soul is outside of scientific investigation. The same with God.

To claim that God picked out a couple of almost-humans and “lit” their souls is not even speculation, it’s pure fiction and based on zero evidence.

Different Creation accounts? Not so. Here’s a good explanation.

creation.com/genesis-contradictions

Regarding the slime of the earth, it’s a favorite reference for the anti-theist. Instead of acknowledging the fact that God can perform miracles, everything is attributed to a blind, natural process where man ‘just happened’ to show up. His self-ugrading body and self-upgrading brain just happened to well, self-upgrade. Poof. That is science-fantasy, not science.

Finally, we are told that Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. Once again, we see the desperate attempt to convince people that God did this, but not that, and at the end of the day, science is disqualified from making a single pronouncement about what God can and cannot do.

The brainwashing that has occurred is simple to spot but apparently, hard to get rid of.

Science CANNOT study God.
Science CANNOT study the soul.

Therefore, science CANNOT say a single thing about human origins AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE. The same people who will tell you the Bible is a myth, along with all the other holy books out there, are also desperate to get Christions to “understand” that a blind process brought them into existence. Ask yourself. Why is that? Why is it so important to create a Secular Creation Story?

If you are 18 and in college and you are told that you are just a bag of chemicals and science has no idea how you came to be, would that change your worldview? If you were told you were just another animal?

This is a very important question, and people are being manipulated into believing the following: If you have a planet that is a certain distance from its Sun and it has water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids) then life will appear. Thast’s right, a bunch of chemicals will get together and after adding in enough time, they will automatically go from nonlife to life. They cannot do this in the lab today. This is a fiction that science cannot demonstrate is true. It is a greatly desired belief. The Secular Creation Story is an affirmation that Nothing made you. What? You still believe in the invisible man in the sky?

Do you understand? There are no peer reviewed papers about God, the Soul or Genesis. Everything that is being claimed about the Bible is pure speculation without rigorous scientific investigation to back up any of it.

It is the dream of the secularists to overthrow God and to turn you and me into natural accidental events. Bags of chemicals that can walk and talk. Our purpose? Reproduction, or not, performing a few adaptive behaviors, protection of tribe and offspring, followed by death.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)