N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Ignorance seems like a good word to use… but why superstition or paganism? I don’t see what creationism has to do with either.
- Status
S
surgei
Guest
Superstion is a type of psudo science. Baseball is full of it.
Paganism??? Foreign to true Christian faith maybe.
I
inthecloud
Guest
John Henry Newman looked at history and became a Catholic.
Cardinal John Henry Newman looked at history and supported Darwin from the pulpit.
Father Georges Lemaitre no, better Mongsignor Georges Lemaitre, sciense advisor to Popes Pius XI, XII and John XXIII. He also fathered the Big Bang theory of cosmogenesis.
People are saying oh, even Pope John Paul II called evolution more that a theory, they forgot that the church had been more open to that theory. To bad many some US catholics are falling to the fundies propaganda that is either YEC or atheism. What the fundies are doing in the botton is defending Sola Scritura because that doctrine melts if you have to look at Genesis as symbolical and their whole Bible start to melt eventualy.
Catholics have a Sacred Tradition to back them up and can look as Scripture in more symbolic ways.
Cardinal John Henry Newman looked at history and supported Darwin from the pulpit.
Father Georges Lemaitre no, better Mongsignor Georges Lemaitre, sciense advisor to Popes Pius XI, XII and John XXIII. He also fathered the Big Bang theory of cosmogenesis.
People are saying oh, even Pope John Paul II called evolution more that a theory, they forgot that the church had been more open to that theory. To bad many some US catholics are falling to the fundies propaganda that is either YEC or atheism. What the fundies are doing in the botton is defending Sola Scritura because that doctrine melts if you have to look at Genesis as symbolical and their whole Bible start to melt eventualy.
Catholics have a Sacred Tradition to back them up and can look as Scripture in more symbolic ways.
S
surgei
Guest
Although I reject sola scriptora, I don’t buy the argument you just posited. Hugh Ross is an OE proponent and a sola scriptora adherant.
J
jdnation
Guest
Pfft, sounds like the same Vatican astronomer who’s been repeatedly showing his vitriolic hostility to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Which just goes to show how even so called ‘learned men’ can still be so, soooo very ignorant…
If you still seem to think that macro-evolution, the theory that simple cells rose to become fish then amphibians then mammals then monkey then men, is a ‘proven scientific fact’ then you’ve been had… Macro evolution is not real science, it is neither testable, nor observable nor experimentally re-creatable. It is nothing more than a religious belief whose dogmas are unquestioningly enforced onto the general public as if it was real operational science. But really it’s just story based on atheistic philosophy and extrapolated from unproved assumptions and imaginary processes. You can believe in it if you want and the consensus can agree, but it doesn’t establish it as scientific fact. Neither Creationism or Intelligent Design are provable science either, but they’re a heck of a lot better at explaining present day processes in science and more in-line with our Catholic beliefs.
If you accept macro-evolution, then you must also accept the evolutionary assumption that death, suffering, bloodshed and diseases existed since the beginning of life’s appearance and have always been there long before man arrived on the scene. But if this is so, then that means that the Church’s teachings that death exists because of our sins, is complete hogwash! If death existed before man then it existed before sin, and therefore death is not the wages of sin, and not only that, but then this makes God out to be the DELIBERATE author of death, which is blasphemy! Also it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross, because he saves us from sin AND death, death of course being a result of sin, and for that not only was it a spiritual reckoning, but Christ also had to suffer physically and bleed and die a physical death and rise again to a renewed physical body! But what’s the point of all this is death always existed and was God’s doing to begin with? Athiests like Tom Harpur and his ilk have always known how Macro-evolution undermines the message of the cross! So if it wasn’t to save us from death and suffering that area result of our sins, then what was the point of Christ’s Passion? And when Revelations and the Apostles tells us of how the creation will be renewed and go back to what it was originally created to be, does that mean that death and suffering and diseases will always exist, even in a paradise where God lives with us? Is God not perfect enough to create a world free from death originally? And if death and these ills always existed and was a part of the universe form the beginning then how can God’s creation be called ‘very good’ if death is ‘bad’ and an ‘intruder’? Even if you want to take Genesis allegorically it doesn’t make any sense at all… What precisely have we been placing our faith in?
The book of Genesis as well as Exodus and Moses’ other writings are written to be LITERAL HISTORY! Genesis and Exodus have a writing and grammatical writing style that shows the author originally meant them to be literal historical narratives, just like the Psalms are poetic, and the Gospels are biographies, and the letters are letters and parables are parables and Revelations is apocalyptic! Therefore we must read those books as the author originally intended them to be, as literal history! About how the world was literally made, and was corrupted and how God found and led His chosen people towards the salvation of the world. If you want to reject Genesis as literal history despite the evidence showing that indeed it is then one can also freely reject the Gospels as being just-so poetic fables despite the evidence showing that they are meant to be taken seriously! Each book of the Bible has a genre and things should be read or interpreted by that genre of writing and style. Genesis as well as much of the Bible contains allegorical and foreshadowing things that we classify under ‘typology’ For example the Ark of the Covenant is a type for the Virgin Mary, or the account of the fall is also a type for the crucifixion and passion of Christ, or the Psalms of David poetically tell of his own suffering and feelings and his betrayal by his own son Absolom, and yet again to foreshadow the betrayal of Christ by Judas. These types and other layers of meanings and foreshadowing and prophecies and teachings for our own lives truly show the richness and inspiration of God in Scripture, but at the same time, as a type must also require, they must be truthful accounts and actual historic events!
contd>
If you still seem to think that macro-evolution, the theory that simple cells rose to become fish then amphibians then mammals then monkey then men, is a ‘proven scientific fact’ then you’ve been had… Macro evolution is not real science, it is neither testable, nor observable nor experimentally re-creatable. It is nothing more than a religious belief whose dogmas are unquestioningly enforced onto the general public as if it was real operational science. But really it’s just story based on atheistic philosophy and extrapolated from unproved assumptions and imaginary processes. You can believe in it if you want and the consensus can agree, but it doesn’t establish it as scientific fact. Neither Creationism or Intelligent Design are provable science either, but they’re a heck of a lot better at explaining present day processes in science and more in-line with our Catholic beliefs.
If you accept macro-evolution, then you must also accept the evolutionary assumption that death, suffering, bloodshed and diseases existed since the beginning of life’s appearance and have always been there long before man arrived on the scene. But if this is so, then that means that the Church’s teachings that death exists because of our sins, is complete hogwash! If death existed before man then it existed before sin, and therefore death is not the wages of sin, and not only that, but then this makes God out to be the DELIBERATE author of death, which is blasphemy! Also it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross, because he saves us from sin AND death, death of course being a result of sin, and for that not only was it a spiritual reckoning, but Christ also had to suffer physically and bleed and die a physical death and rise again to a renewed physical body! But what’s the point of all this is death always existed and was God’s doing to begin with? Athiests like Tom Harpur and his ilk have always known how Macro-evolution undermines the message of the cross! So if it wasn’t to save us from death and suffering that area result of our sins, then what was the point of Christ’s Passion? And when Revelations and the Apostles tells us of how the creation will be renewed and go back to what it was originally created to be, does that mean that death and suffering and diseases will always exist, even in a paradise where God lives with us? Is God not perfect enough to create a world free from death originally? And if death and these ills always existed and was a part of the universe form the beginning then how can God’s creation be called ‘very good’ if death is ‘bad’ and an ‘intruder’? Even if you want to take Genesis allegorically it doesn’t make any sense at all… What precisely have we been placing our faith in?
The book of Genesis as well as Exodus and Moses’ other writings are written to be LITERAL HISTORY! Genesis and Exodus have a writing and grammatical writing style that shows the author originally meant them to be literal historical narratives, just like the Psalms are poetic, and the Gospels are biographies, and the letters are letters and parables are parables and Revelations is apocalyptic! Therefore we must read those books as the author originally intended them to be, as literal history! About how the world was literally made, and was corrupted and how God found and led His chosen people towards the salvation of the world. If you want to reject Genesis as literal history despite the evidence showing that indeed it is then one can also freely reject the Gospels as being just-so poetic fables despite the evidence showing that they are meant to be taken seriously! Each book of the Bible has a genre and things should be read or interpreted by that genre of writing and style. Genesis as well as much of the Bible contains allegorical and foreshadowing things that we classify under ‘typology’ For example the Ark of the Covenant is a type for the Virgin Mary, or the account of the fall is also a type for the crucifixion and passion of Christ, or the Psalms of David poetically tell of his own suffering and feelings and his betrayal by his own son Absolom, and yet again to foreshadow the betrayal of Christ by Judas. These types and other layers of meanings and foreshadowing and prophecies and teachings for our own lives truly show the richness and inspiration of God in Scripture, but at the same time, as a type must also require, they must be truthful accounts and actual historic events!
contd>
J
jdnation
Guest
So Biblical accounts can be actual history and have allegorical meaning and prophecy, truly something only God Himself can accomplish and fulfill through His own Holy Book! Macro-Evolution undermines our faith and those who are trying to compromise these two incompatible things will only run into problems. Meanwhile despite what evolutionists would like you to believe, everything you observe and see done in science today is totally compatible with Biblical Creationism and the account of Creation in Genesis!
Most people are completely ignorant of creationist science and the problems with macro-evolution, just the same as how many people are totally ignorant that there’s this thing called ‘apologetics’ that we utilize to defend our faith and morals! Sure the vast majority of everyone here at Catholic Answers Forums knows their stuff but I’m sure you all can attest to the fact that the vast majority of Christians and Catholics hardly know much about the most basic things in their own faith. Even we have been guilty of these things, just the same, many are ignorant about the positive and truthful worth of Creationism and the reasons we ought to adhere to and defend it rather than give into the secular world and atheistic philosophies trying to pass themselves off as operational scientific fact by appealing to consensus, ‘separation’ of Church and State, and vague statements that Evolution is proven and Creation is disproved by “this or that.”
In fact, many of the principles and things Evolutionists use to study their own faith based account of the universe’s origin such as Natural Selection, originally come from Creationists like Edward Blythe and scientific laws from creationists like Isaac Newton. Belief in God and six day creation didn’t stop them from advancing science, so what’s this propaganda nonsense about how Creationism and Intelligent Design will halt scientific progress??? Not only is that statement absurd, it’s also hypocritical coming from advocates of macro-evolution whose own unproven and un-testable scientific philosophy has also not contributed anything to the advancement of real operational science, the stuff that gathers information and makes medical and technological advancements that depends on present day observations and experiments and not some fantasies of the past that cannot be recreated or known?
contd>
Most people are completely ignorant of creationist science and the problems with macro-evolution, just the same as how many people are totally ignorant that there’s this thing called ‘apologetics’ that we utilize to defend our faith and morals! Sure the vast majority of everyone here at Catholic Answers Forums knows their stuff but I’m sure you all can attest to the fact that the vast majority of Christians and Catholics hardly know much about the most basic things in their own faith. Even we have been guilty of these things, just the same, many are ignorant about the positive and truthful worth of Creationism and the reasons we ought to adhere to and defend it rather than give into the secular world and atheistic philosophies trying to pass themselves off as operational scientific fact by appealing to consensus, ‘separation’ of Church and State, and vague statements that Evolution is proven and Creation is disproved by “this or that.”
In fact, many of the principles and things Evolutionists use to study their own faith based account of the universe’s origin such as Natural Selection, originally come from Creationists like Edward Blythe and scientific laws from creationists like Isaac Newton. Belief in God and six day creation didn’t stop them from advancing science, so what’s this propaganda nonsense about how Creationism and Intelligent Design will halt scientific progress??? Not only is that statement absurd, it’s also hypocritical coming from advocates of macro-evolution whose own unproven and un-testable scientific philosophy has also not contributed anything to the advancement of real operational science, the stuff that gathers information and makes medical and technological advancements that depends on present day observations and experiments and not some fantasies of the past that cannot be recreated or known?
contd>
J
jdnation
Guest
Macro-evolution undermines our faith and Christ’s death for us. The Church ought to seriously open up this issue and study it as it’s painfully obvious where it attacks us especially since practically our entire faith rests on a book as foundational as Genesis! So don’t simply stand there and take my word for it, go out there and learn about creationism and why it is necessary and how atheistic scientists and humanists have pulled the wool over our eyes with concern to the scientific validity of Macro-evolution!
A good place to start would be the AiG protestant-run site. And before anyone seems to think that I am or was an ex-Protestant, I’m not, I was born and raised and remain Catholic and was staunchly anti-Fundamentalist and used to ridicule anyone that believed in a 6 day creation and praising completely fictional and outright false propagandistic pieces like ‘Inherit the Wind’ until I actually learned about it and what an embarrassing and ignorant person I was… In fact if it weren’t for Creationism I wouldn’t even be as staunchly Catholic as I am today, nor would I have involved myself in apologetics, nor would I even be discerning diocesan priesthood as I am today! If by its fruits you shall know it, then Creationism speaks for itself and brother, I’ve come a long way from where I was before! Anyway, Catholics won’t encounter anything against the faith on the AiG website (aside from of course the emphasizing of returning to the Scriptures that betray their sola-scripture stance but you should already know that going in). The address is at:
answersingenesis.org
The front page is always updated with articles, news and visitor feedback and dissention. Their Answers section is well organized and you can find answers to practically all your questions here (You can even do a search at the top right):
answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Also they have free streaming videos that I highly recommend that load fast and are very informative! Please check them out!
answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
And if there happens to be something you can’t find, or don’t understand or maybe something you may want to vent at them about (politely of course) Use their feedback area, I have and they’re good at replying and giving you detailed responses:
answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/
The evolution/creation controversy will definitely be one of the most debated and talked about things over the coming years. It’s too bad that most of the media tends to usually focus on Intelligent Design rather than Biblical Creationists, but in due time we’ll get there too! Also there is a recently opened and successful Creation Museum in the States, and for those interested, FOX news I believe will have a segment on faith and miracles on Christmas eve that covers the museum, and other things like Fatima which should be mightily interesting… You can find some info here:
answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/21/creation-museum-on-fox-news
Catholics should take note that even though Scripture is not the only source of faith that we have, you’d be foolish to disregard it in favor of only Church Tradition, for the Church and its authority is rooted in the Bible, and the Bible comes from the Church. They are integral to each other and you cannot just slice one away in favor of the other! Members of the Church can be made of falliable and mistaken men. But the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God Himself who in his providence led the Church to record and compile it! You cannot and must not divorce them from each other! Both are given to us by God so do not foolishly throw one or the other back at His face or disregard them. Don’t let any intolerance on our parts for the Protestant faith cloud us from denying things that we must all rightly share and believe in.
A good place to start would be the AiG protestant-run site. And before anyone seems to think that I am or was an ex-Protestant, I’m not, I was born and raised and remain Catholic and was staunchly anti-Fundamentalist and used to ridicule anyone that believed in a 6 day creation and praising completely fictional and outright false propagandistic pieces like ‘Inherit the Wind’ until I actually learned about it and what an embarrassing and ignorant person I was… In fact if it weren’t for Creationism I wouldn’t even be as staunchly Catholic as I am today, nor would I have involved myself in apologetics, nor would I even be discerning diocesan priesthood as I am today! If by its fruits you shall know it, then Creationism speaks for itself and brother, I’ve come a long way from where I was before! Anyway, Catholics won’t encounter anything against the faith on the AiG website (aside from of course the emphasizing of returning to the Scriptures that betray their sola-scripture stance but you should already know that going in). The address is at:
answersingenesis.org
The front page is always updated with articles, news and visitor feedback and dissention. Their Answers section is well organized and you can find answers to practically all your questions here (You can even do a search at the top right):
answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Also they have free streaming videos that I highly recommend that load fast and are very informative! Please check them out!
answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
And if there happens to be something you can’t find, or don’t understand or maybe something you may want to vent at them about (politely of course) Use their feedback area, I have and they’re good at replying and giving you detailed responses:
answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/
The evolution/creation controversy will definitely be one of the most debated and talked about things over the coming years. It’s too bad that most of the media tends to usually focus on Intelligent Design rather than Biblical Creationists, but in due time we’ll get there too! Also there is a recently opened and successful Creation Museum in the States, and for those interested, FOX news I believe will have a segment on faith and miracles on Christmas eve that covers the museum, and other things like Fatima which should be mightily interesting… You can find some info here:
answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/21/creation-museum-on-fox-news
Catholics should take note that even though Scripture is not the only source of faith that we have, you’d be foolish to disregard it in favor of only Church Tradition, for the Church and its authority is rooted in the Bible, and the Bible comes from the Church. They are integral to each other and you cannot just slice one away in favor of the other! Members of the Church can be made of falliable and mistaken men. But the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God Himself who in his providence led the Church to record and compile it! You cannot and must not divorce them from each other! Both are given to us by God so do not foolishly throw one or the other back at His face or disregard them. Don’t let any intolerance on our parts for the Protestant faith cloud us from denying things that we must all rightly share and believe in.
E
edwest2
Guest
I do not believe and neither does the Catholic Church, in naturalistic evolution; the kind taught in schools. No, I am not insisting on religion in science class. No, I am not insisting on religion in science papers or journals. I stand by the word of the Catholic Church and against the falsehoods presented here that the Church embraces the kind of evolution taught in secular schools.
From Human Persons Created in the Image of God:
"Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that ‘new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge’ (“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution’ 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are ‘several theories of evolution’ that are ‘materialist, reductionist and spiritualist’ and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” Part 64
God bless,
Ed
From Human Persons Created in the Image of God:
"Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that ‘new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge’ (“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution’ 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are ‘several theories of evolution’ that are ‘materialist, reductionist and spiritualist’ and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” Part 64
God bless,
Ed
S
surgei
Guest
AiG is not only Baptist backed it is poor science. (I grew up in one of the Baptist Churches that helped with its founding.)
From a strictly science point of view, Reasons to Believe does a great job although in one of his books his anti Catholic training comes up as well.
For defense against the theological errors they spew such as sola scriptura and other apostate teachings stick around here. One of the problems they have is that by saying that God created the apearance of age in a world that was not so, they turn God into a liar.
I find it odd that although I will admit great aptitude, I have little education and I can and have stood tow to tow with the best they have to offer and poked holes in what basicly amounts to their attempt to poke holes in the work of Father Lemaitre of blessed memory. I remember one time the AiG rep quoted an urban legend in deffense of Jona. My father a staunch Baptist Minister actually did research that showed it was an urban myth. His research was to the point that he showed the man of the myth was not on a whaler but a naval vesal and the ship was bore cargo not hunted for whale. That is if I remember the research rightly. It was some time ago.
From a strictly science point of view, Reasons to Believe does a great job although in one of his books his anti Catholic training comes up as well.
For defense against the theological errors they spew such as sola scriptura and other apostate teachings stick around here. One of the problems they have is that by saying that God created the apearance of age in a world that was not so, they turn God into a liar.
I find it odd that although I will admit great aptitude, I have little education and I can and have stood tow to tow with the best they have to offer and poked holes in what basicly amounts to their attempt to poke holes in the work of Father Lemaitre of blessed memory. I remember one time the AiG rep quoted an urban legend in deffense of Jona. My father a staunch Baptist Minister actually did research that showed it was an urban myth. His research was to the point that he showed the man of the myth was not on a whaler but a naval vesal and the ship was bore cargo not hunted for whale. That is if I remember the research rightly. It was some time ago.
I
inthecloud
Guest
Since say the documentary Sons of Galileo about the Vatican Observatory and the Jesuits.
Those were several priest and brothers who live in the Papal sumer retreat of Castegandolfo and teach in Colleges in Europe and the US. Cosmology. They are the heirs of Father Nicolai Copernik, Galileo, Father Lemaitre and others christian scientists.
Father Coyle and Bother Guy were profiled there. These are not ordinary priests. They often have several Phds in both Theology, Astrophysicis and Mathematics from key euro universities and from the Ivy League. One of them, a young american priest had two Columbia Phds in Astrophysicis and Mathematics and was working into a Phd in Theology in Rome.
Father Coyle was also teaching Cosmology in Arizona State and was supervizing the building of a new super telescope in the Arizona desert, and heavely involved into the Hubble Space telescope program, probably the reasons why he retired from the Vatican observatory, brother Guy C was working in black holes in the Pope’s residency.
I can guess than those men know their science better that any person in AiG and they advise the Pope on science and religion.
When Brother Guy talk of creationism as paganism he refers not to the belief in that God created the Universes but that Creation scientists what to put God into a box, they are trying to demostrate God as a tangible entity, something pagans did.
Their tangible God in not the biblical YHWH, Aristoteles First Cause or St Tomas de Aquinnas inmanet God. Theirs in a tangible signs and wonders God, that is more like a pagan God.
That was Brother Guy C idea.
Those were several priest and brothers who live in the Papal sumer retreat of Castegandolfo and teach in Colleges in Europe and the US. Cosmology. They are the heirs of Father Nicolai Copernik, Galileo, Father Lemaitre and others christian scientists.
Father Coyle and Bother Guy were profiled there. These are not ordinary priests. They often have several Phds in both Theology, Astrophysicis and Mathematics from key euro universities and from the Ivy League. One of them, a young american priest had two Columbia Phds in Astrophysicis and Mathematics and was working into a Phd in Theology in Rome.
Father Coyle was also teaching Cosmology in Arizona State and was supervizing the building of a new super telescope in the Arizona desert, and heavely involved into the Hubble Space telescope program, probably the reasons why he retired from the Vatican observatory, brother Guy C was working in black holes in the Pope’s residency.
I can guess than those men know their science better that any person in AiG and they advise the Pope on science and religion.
When Brother Guy talk of creationism as paganism he refers not to the belief in that God created the Universes but that Creation scientists what to put God into a box, they are trying to demostrate God as a tangible entity, something pagans did.
Their tangible God in not the biblical YHWH, Aristoteles First Cause or St Tomas de Aquinnas inmanet God. Theirs in a tangible signs and wonders God, that is more like a pagan God.
That was Brother Guy C idea.
J
jdnation
Guest
Just because these men hold impressive credentials in their own respective fields doesn’t automatically make them experts in Macro-Evolution itself, nor does that mean they are incapable of making errors and misjudging another subject, especially ones like macro-evolution and Creationism that are more deeply rooted in philosophy and religious dogmas than either of them ever have to do with factual science. They are both simply philosophically biased interpretations of physical evidence and observed processes.
Also it is not that Creationists are putting God ‘in a box’ nor have I ever encountered any literature or anything that even remotely suggests that Creationists are portraying God as the tangible sort that the pagans did. This more than anything goes to show Brother Guy’s complete ignorance on a subject he’s vehement against. I don’t think you’ll ever encounter a creationist that wouldn’t agree that God ‘could have’ used macro-evolutionary processes ‘IF He wanted to…’ The entire point is that God HIMSELF says in His OWN Scriptures that He inspired and in laws which He directly gave that He did not use macro-evolutionary processes. He supernaturally created the world in 6 days. Also He created the world ‘very good’ and things like death, diseases and all kinds of suffering and vulnerabilities that we witness in our world today are a result of mankind’s own sin, and not because of God! To believe in macro evolution means to also believe God is the author of death and suffering before man and sin ever came into existence, and God is a being who approves of a bloody survival of the fittest methodology from the beginning, which is heretical to God’s character and undermines Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and creates a big contradiction for our theology. Macro-evolution is a scientific philosophy that undermines all Christianity.
Also it is not that Creationists are putting God ‘in a box’ nor have I ever encountered any literature or anything that even remotely suggests that Creationists are portraying God as the tangible sort that the pagans did. This more than anything goes to show Brother Guy’s complete ignorance on a subject he’s vehement against. I don’t think you’ll ever encounter a creationist that wouldn’t agree that God ‘could have’ used macro-evolutionary processes ‘IF He wanted to…’ The entire point is that God HIMSELF says in His OWN Scriptures that He inspired and in laws which He directly gave that He did not use macro-evolutionary processes. He supernaturally created the world in 6 days. Also He created the world ‘very good’ and things like death, diseases and all kinds of suffering and vulnerabilities that we witness in our world today are a result of mankind’s own sin, and not because of God! To believe in macro evolution means to also believe God is the author of death and suffering before man and sin ever came into existence, and God is a being who approves of a bloody survival of the fittest methodology from the beginning, which is heretical to God’s character and undermines Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and creates a big contradiction for our theology. Macro-evolution is a scientific philosophy that undermines all Christianity.
S
surgei
Guest
I don’t know where to start with this. It has so many issues. Are you just putting this out, or do you want us to examine and coment on it? Are you willing to learn? Where did you get this ideology?
If you really want coment let me know.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Ah will we ever come to a conclusion on this topic. 
U
ultimate_ed
Guest
Yes, but probably not in our lifetime. For myself, a Catholic and an engineer, I find it more and more troubling the almost fever that grips America regarding the blind locking on to a 6 day/6000 year creation.Ah will we ever come to a conclusion on this topic.
The miracles of Jesus in the Gospels were meant as signs to reveal himself as the Son of God and to reveal the Father’s love for us. I have no trouble accepting these accounts as offered.
As for Genesis - who was there to witness the creation but the Trinity? Those who wrote Genesis, while inspired, were still primitive people. I was recently taught in classes sponsored by my Archdiocese, that God inspired the human authors, but the authors wrote the words and used the concepts available to them. To suggest that they are an “eyewitness to history” kind of account is a strange notion.
To compare the “miracle” of a 6000 year old universe that looks like it’s 14 billion year old to the miracles of our Lord during His Earthly ministry is simply offensive to me. I must agree with the others - such a “miracle” does not reveal to us a God of Love, but a deceiver, a trickster. This is not the God that I worship.
God created a vast universe and we are slowly growing to appreciate it as we gain the tools to learn more about it. That some see this knowledge and reject it saddens me as much as those who see this knowledge and conclude there is no God.
E
edwest2
Guest
Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God who gave them the knowledge they needed. Check your New Testament for Christ referencing the “days of Noe” and that “from the beginning He made them male and female.” Any reinterpretations of these statements of our Lord are designed to confuse not enlighten.
Go to the Library on this site. It states that Genesis is actual history. That Adam and Eve were our first parents and sinned, necessitating the coming of Christ. Jesus Christ did not die for neurally advanced partial humans.
What is sad is that some people think that propaganda is something only used in other countries. It happens here all the time.
God bless,
Ed
Go to the Library on this site. It states that Genesis is actual history. That Adam and Eve were our first parents and sinned, necessitating the coming of Christ. Jesus Christ did not die for neurally advanced partial humans.
What is sad is that some people think that propaganda is something only used in other countries. It happens here all the time.
God bless,
Ed
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
I disagree. The paganism problem he’s talking about is reading passages at face value. If someone was to read the bible and take the descriptions of God at face value, they’d end up beliving in a god with very pagan qualities. A god who holds onto the ‘earth’ with his hands? A god who rests his ‘feet’ on the earth? A god who created the world by ‘talking’? That sort of ‘god’ belongs in the archives of National Geographic because a “giant man in the sky” god is essentialy a pagan god – even if he is constructed from the first glance meanings of bible passages.
Instead, when we read those passages we believe in the truth that they teach: God is greater than the world he created and that our understanding will never encompass him or his ways. His ways are not our ways. His hands are not our hands.
But are his days our days?
:bible1: 2 Peter 3:8
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So I agree that to believe that God’s days are my days is paganism, just as it would be paganism to say that God is a large earth grabbing man.
N
NReily
Guest
Luke 8:22-25
One day he got into a boat with his disciples and said to them, “Let us cross to the other side of the lake.” So they set sail,
and while they were sailing he fell asleep. A squall blew over the lake, and they were taking in water and were in danger.
They came and woke him saying, “Master, master, we are perishing!” He awakened, rebuked the wind and the waves, and they subsided and there was a calm.
Then he asked them, “Where is your faith?” But they were filled with awe and amazed and said to one another, “Who then is this, who commands even the winds and the sea, and they obey him?”
If Jesus can do that, why is it the equivalent of paganism to believe God the Father can do that with the creation of the earth?
Knowing a number of creationists as a former Protestant, its not that they are reading Genesis at face value without thinking about it. Instead, its the fact that they are highly suspect to the thought of taking Genesis figuratively, when the language used in account in their view does not lend itself to a figurative interpretation. Hardly a Pagan or Uneducated view.
Also, they would have to question the use of 2 Peter 3:8, since the context of that verse doesn’t refer to the days of creation, and it says a day is As or Like a thousand years, which is the not the same thing as saying a day with the Lord IS a thousand years.
S
surgei
Guest
We are not saying that God could not speak the world into being as fundamentalists claim. We are saying their understanding of the mechanisms that happened to make what came into being.
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
I don’t mean in terms of timing. Obviously both Jesus and the Father “can” get instant results. What I was hinting at is that there’s more to the word who was with God and who was God and through whom all things were made than a giant man talking super-loud. By that I mean, the pagan answer to the question “What is the logos?” is “human talking.”
The act of having a view does not disqualify it from being pagan, nor does being wrong disqualify one from being educated.
Let me put it another way, let’s say that someone else you know has yet another personal view about how to read the bible and based on their view they believe that God has human nostrils. Then they cite the following verses:
Exod.15
[8] At the blast of thy nostrils the waters piled up,
the floods stood up in a heap;
the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.
2Sam.22
[9] Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
[16] Then the channels of the sea were seen,
the foundations of the world were laid bare,
at the rebuke of the LORD,
at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
Job.41
[20] Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke,
as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
Ps.18
[8] Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
[15] Then the channels of the sea were seen,
and the foundations of the world were laid bare,
at thy rebuke, O LORD,
at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
(I included this last one since it shows that idols don’t have nostrils, much to their detriment.)
Wis.15
[14] But most foolish, and more miserable than an infant,
are all the enemies who oppressed thy people.
[15] For they thought that all their heathen idols were gods,
though these have neither the use of their eyes to see with,
nor nostrils with which to draw breath,
nor ears with which to hear,
nor fingers to feel with,
and their feet are of no use for walking.
What’s the correct response to that? I personaly, don’t know how to outscripture such a person. They’ve already sealed their own fate by dictating to God how his scriptures will be understood. They believe that nostrils are literal but God’s transendence is figurative.
But is their belief the Bible’s fault? Read my sig (below) to see what I think.
N
NReily
Guest
The response would be based on whether the language used in the verses cited lends itself to a more literal or figurative interpretation. The books of Wisdom, Psalms, and Job in their view would do so. Genesis would not, especially based upon language used in Genesis 1. Regardless of what view is actually right, it is simply inappropriate and a foolish statement for that Jesuit say that the ‘fundies’ (a number of my former colleagues and friends who are passionate followers of Christ) view is similar to believing in some backwards uneducated folk belief, when it is simply a difference in hermeneutics.
- Status