C
carol_marie
Guest
Either it’s true or it isn’t? I don’t understand how it could be truth but not true?
- Status
S
steveandersen
Guest
Perhaps you were raised in a fundamentalists tradition?
It is an old philosophical tradition that things can have several meanings and different depths of meaning. The literal, the allegorical, etc…
V
VociMike
Guest
Jesus says we are to hate our fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers and spouses and children and even our own lives. Is that literally true, or does it convey a non-literal truth?
The Catechism explains clearly what truth the scriptures hold:
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
Is it so hard to accept that God does not require us to believe in six literal days for our salvation (especially in light of the evidence which our own God-given intellect provides)?
L
LJN21
Guest
I think the major bump in the road for a lot of is is the origins of evolution and the agenda behind it.
How it seem to completely go against teachings like “Man is created in the image and likeness of God”.
The willingness to toss Genesis out completely as “myth” instead of attempting to understand what is an allegory or its symbolic of.
I was raised Catholic myself not fundamentalist so I don’t think this is a fundamentalism thing/
How it seem to completely go against teachings like “Man is created in the image and likeness of God”.
The willingness to toss Genesis out completely as “myth” instead of attempting to understand what is an allegory or its symbolic of.
I was raised Catholic myself not fundamentalist so I don’t think this is a fundamentalism thing/
J
JamesBraganza
Guest
Code:
Thank you for responding:) Carol
Catholic is not against science impact the church
was use to be the sponsors of scientist in quest
for new discoveries , like the copernican theory
copernicus is a catholic priest who made this discovery.world we live. thru it we can measure how old the stone is
what element it contains etc. But on my point of view when
we are speaking about the past like the age of that stone
it is not accurate sometimes not at all correct,
Reason why:
a) we do not own the past nor the future
b) God created the earth on a single act
with it are same age of stone ( im using the stone as
example) but on our point of view , they are of
different age . God created old stones same age
as those of new stones. They only look older for
God made them so.
S
steveandersen
Guest
kinda poses a problem if you want modern medicine, airplanes than don’t fall out of the sky, or internet forums
Science says we came from dust too
Non-sequiter
There is no conflict between faith and reason.
There can’t be.
Scripture tells us that He created the world
Science tells us how He did it
I’m not sure why this is a such stumbling block for some
V
VociMike
Guest
Then you have placed yourself in a ghetto from which you cannot hope to preach the gospel to the secular world.
In the first place, I would challenge you to prove that most scientists are atheists. And even if they are, does that falsify their science? If an atheist says that 2+2=4, does 2+2 then not equal 4?
In fact, studies have shown that physical scientists (physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, etc) are more likely to believe in God than are social scientists. Interesting.
V
VociMike
Guest
I am in complete sympathy with you here. I abhor the corruption of the scientific process to fit an agenda.
But really, creation out of a pile of dust is no better in that regard.
It’s part of the never-ending battle the Church fights against error in either direction.
It may be more of a reaction against the obvious anti-Christian and anti-religious agendas that use science as cover. I react against those agendas too, but we have to be careful not to throw out the real science with the agendized scientists.
V
VociMike
Guest
And what is remarkable is that the glory, beauty, truth of God is reflected in both the “what” of scripture and the “how” of science. It is like finding out that Shakespeare was *also *Mozart *and *Einstein.
L
LJN21
Guest
Okay I’ve spent most of the morning reading arguments for and against Macroevolution (one species evolving in to a new species) and I’m still convinced it has no observable basis.
I also find it interesting that those stating that Macro evolution has no observable basis tend speak plainly while the attitude of it does happen is all high and mighty and well you just can’t understand.
Not unlike this thread.
I also find it interesting that those stating that Macro evolution has no observable basis tend speak plainly while the attitude of it does happen is all high and mighty and well you just can’t understand.
Not unlike this thread.
V
VociMike
Guest
This discussion doesn’t live or die on macroevolution. What about the creation and development of the universe? Did it happen in six days or 15 billion years?
FWIW, my view on macroevolution is that if it is true, then it’s true because it is God’s chosen tool. There are no random mutations to God, so there’s nothing about macroevolution that removes God from the picture, no matter what Dawkins and gang might think.
J
JamesBraganza
Guest
Science cannot tell us how God made the worldkinda poses a problem if you want modern medicine, airplanes than don’t fall out of the sky, or internet forums
Science says we came from dust too
Non-sequiter
There is no conflict between faith and reason.
There can’t be.
Scripture tells us that He created the world
Science tells us how He did it ( I beg to disagree with this )
I’m not sure why this is a such stumbling block for some
Creating Something from Nothing . To tell you " God’s
Word is Reality to Man" That is why the Son of God
lives with us . the Word of GOD
C
carol_marie
Guest
I see what you’re saying. But the Church Fathers NEVER believed that we were to hate our fathers & mothers. Yet according to the links previously posted, they believed in a literal Genesis up through 1950. So what happened? Modern Science proved them all wrong?
And yes, I know they also believed that the sun orbits the earth. Which only goes to show that they give opinions - but big deal? I have an opinion too. Who’s to say they are right about anything? They’ve been VERY wrong in the past.
OK - so my last question is WHY should I trust anything the Chruch Fathers have said? If we can dismiss what they said about Creation - can’t we dismiss other things as well?
Ahhhhh!!! It all begins to crumble like a house of cards.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
No one is saying you cant hold your position, I hope!
You can.
But, you can’t consider those who dont agree with you heretics either.
Be careful, there is a balance and if one tips its disaster.
Let me remind you of Pope Clement VIII in 1597 (?) he had to break up a huge dispute with the Jesuits and the Dominicans. His plea was they HAD to stop calling each other heretics for holding a opposing view of the operations of divine grace.
Dont fall into that trap.
C
carol_marie
Guest
I don’t think they are heritics - I just think they are wrong.No one is saying you cant hold your position, I hope!
You can.
But, you can’t consider those who dont agree with you heretics either.
Be careful, there is a balance and if one tips its disaster.
Let me remind you of Pope Clement VIII in 1597 (?) he had to break up a huge dispute with the Jesuits and the Dominicans. His plea was they HAD to stop calling each other heretics for holding a opposing view of the operations of divine grace.
Dont fall into that trap.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
That is what I am talking about! I missed this part- you must have added it during the edit mode time.OK - so my last question is WHY should I trust anything the Chruch Fathers have said? If we can dismiss what they said about Creation - can’t we dismiss other things as well?
Ahhhhh!!! It all begins to crumble like a house of cards.
Nothing “begins to crumble”!
Carol Marie, go get some more tea and a cookie, and please pray. You are saying things that are very serious and you need to take a step back and adjust your zoom level. Please, I say this out of love and concern for you.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Okay. But, remember they are not saying you are wrong.I don’t think they are heritics - I just think they are wrong.
Only that they dont see it as a literal account.
V
VociMike
Guest
The bible also says that the life is in the blood, but there are living things that do not have blood. Again, the truth of “the life is in the blood” is not meant to be a scientific truth, but a preparation of God’s people for the Incarnation, Passion and Death of Christ, and for the institution of the Eucharist.I see what you’re saying. But the Church Fathers NEVER believed that we were to hate our fathers & mothers. Yet according to the links previously posted, they believed in a literal Genesis up through 1950. So what happened? Modern Science proved them all wrong?
And yes, I know they also believed that we revolved around the sun. Which only goes to show that they give opinions - but big deal? I have an opinion too. Who’s to say they are right about anything? They’ve been VERY wrong in the past.
OK - so my last question is WHY should I trust anything the Chruch Fathers have said? If we can dismiss what they said about Creation - can’t we dismiss other things as well?
Ahhhhh!!! It all begins to crumble like a house of cards.
The Church Fathers did not claim to be scientists. They had no reason not to believe in six literal days. But now our God-given intellect has provided us with tools and evidence that conflict with six literal days.
Your dilemma is exactly why the bible cannot be properly understood outside of the Church. I agree that the question “what is literal, what is not?” is a fair one. And it is one that can only be answered by the Church. Not by our own devices, but only by the Church.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m sorry you don’t find the evidence convincing. There is a lot of info on the links I gave you.
I think one reason that those opposed to the science “speak plainly” and those who support the science tend to speak technically is that the science is technical and the position of the one opposed to science, at least in the context of a forum like this, is more effective if details are not used. Blanket statements like “there is no evidence for macro evolution” rely on the fact that most people who read these forums don’t have a technical background to question the statement. At the same time, it makes the person making the statement sound like perhaps they do. While that may or may not be the case, the person who replies cannot just come back with “yes there is” unless there is something to back up that position. I know, I have tried that approach and I always end up having to give a technical reason for my position.
I think one of the reasons we have these disagreements is that many people seem to not understand that science isn’t easy or intuitive. If one asks for scientific evidence, the answer will very likely be in a form that requires a bit of scientific background to understand. That is unfortunate, but it is also necessary. It is obviously easier to state that there is no evidence for macro-evolution than it is to give the evidence in a non-technical way. For example, you say you don’t find any of the evidence compelling and yet you don’t give a scientific reason to oppose it.
How about you give a refutation of say the reptile-mammal transition described in one of the links I gave you. I am genuinely curious as to what your technical argument would be.
Peace
Tim
ps - I find it interesting that you complain that the answers of those who answer your claim that there is no evidence for macro evolution “is all high and mighty and well you just can’t understand” and yet you took offense when I referred you to a mostly non-technical source refuting your statement. How would you like it, LJN21? Layman terms or technical?
C
carol_marie
Guest
Carol Marie, go get some more tea and a cookie, and please pray. You are saying things that are very serious and you need to take a step back and adjust your zoom level. Please, I say this out of love and concern for you.
You are sweet & correct. Thank you for your concern & love.
It is very difficult to be a convert. Another poster said, “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Yes I was - who knows? Maybe I still am?
Just when I think I have it all ironed out - something hits me that makes me wonder what a Bible thumpin’, Jesus lovin’ born again Christian is doing being Catholic - I think WHAT have I done? And it’s threads like this where I hear the voices of my former Evangelical friends whispering, “THEY don’t even believe in the Bible!!!”big sigh.
Prayer is good. I will do just that.
- Status