S
spn82756
Guest
Hmmmm…Now comon! They weren’t around that same time humans were here!Humans needed to be saved from the dinosaurs?
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
S
steve711
Guest
Cassini,
I went to Catholic schools through grade 12, and so did my children, and I hope that my grandchildren will also. I or my children have never been taught to take the Old Testament literally. This is not the same for the New Testament.
As a scientist/engineer and devout Catholic, I am tired of hearing how science is bad because of not believing in the creationist theories. I suppose that all the good science has done, can just be thrown out because of this.
Many scientist I know are also very religious people, and to say we turn our backs on Gods teachings because we do not take the Old Testament literally is nothing more than creationist thinking seeping into the Catholic Church.
But look at this way, when Jesus was asked by the Hebrew Religious Leaders of the time what was the greatest of the commandments (given by God to Moses), he answered Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self. WOW! I did not see that one in the Old Testament, but I certainly believe it.
Go with Gods Grace!
C
cassini
Guest
Ever hear of the Devil and his Great Conspiracy?That’s your answer? The Great Conspiracy.With just a remnant of true believers, i.e. the creationists?
Methinks you are out of touch with the Church, and the Church Fathers. I can’t buy into a word of what you are saying.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Were too, were too. I saw it on TV, The Flintstones.Hmmmm…Now comon! They weren’t around that same time humans were here!
They wouldn’t lie to me, not on my own damn TV?
I
itinerant1
Guest
I’m seeing it.
S
spn82756
Guest
Yah…well I’ve got you beat. I saw a martian on TV when I was a kid. And he was MY favorite martian!!
I
itinerant1
Guest
Was the Martian doing recon for the first wave terra formers? That’s why we actually have global warming, you know! It’s those terra formers. It’s not AGW, anthropogenic global warming, it’s MGW…Good grief!..I better call Al Gore and let him know.
C
cassini
Guest
Hi Steve. For 1800 years, Christians took the revelations of Genesis as literal as all the Fathers, doctors, popes clergy and laity did throughout time. Theology was built upon these revelations.Then came scientific or more properly metaphysical assumptions. Now it is one thing for secular society to accept the findings of SOME science, quite another to apply it to dogmas and doctrines of the Church as absolute facts. The Church’s queen is theology. The Church’s belief is total in dogmas backed up with doctrines. Until these ‘SCIENCEs’ came along there was COMPLETE harmony with all dogmas, doctrines and natural philosophy.
Now you know well that the sciences we talk about are extrapolated theories, not absolutes that are found in other sciences. But these metaphysical assumptions demanded changes in the theology of creation. When applied they caused CHAOS. Science and theology overlapped and there the problem lies. Up to 1833 theology was queen and revelation superceded scientific theories. But after that revelation was ‘watered down’ to accommodate scientific theories and metaphysical assumptions. Of course the hierarchy and clergy carried on as though the dogmas and doctrines held firm without loss of revelation. Metaphor is the magic word. It can make anything be anything in the modern Catholic Church. So what if science complicates a dogma, sure we can go on and say it doesn’t and pretend it doesn’t. Then all Catholics are happy, scientist Catholics the happiest, they have their cake and eat it.
Except those Catholics who refuse scientific theories to form their theology. But they can easily be discounted and discredited can’t they, just bring along some scientists from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the new advisers to the Catholic Church, a hall full of non-believers…
S
spn82756
Guest
Wow…so now the Vatican is full of non-believers. I think you are now bordering on being other than Catholic.
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you are saying that all the Fathers interpreted Genesis literally, then you know nothing about the Church Fathers. Your statement is blatantly false.
Regarding Genesis 1, even Aquinas said “a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.”
C
cassini
Guest
Wow…so now the Vatican is full of non-believers. I think you are now bordering on being other than Catholic.
No spn, they do believe, we all believe in the dogmas, its just that creationist Catholics have a pure, simple, perfect theology of these dogmas and doctrines, just as the Fathers held.
The science-led theology of these dogmas is in chaos. I suppose one could say then that both sides show great faith, one in the simple understanding, a greater one arising out of a chaotic understanding.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Wow…so now the Vatican is full of non-believers. I think you are now bordering on being other than Catholic.
I concur. What do you think, a sede vacantist?
E
edwest2
Guest
There are things science cannot explain. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. Both were real individual people. It is not the fault of science, that some, using a false philosophy, post here to say: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.”
When people pay to put up billboards that read; “Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.” don’t you think they really believe that? How about the people driving by?
I went to Catholic school also but I was taught to believe the Word of God.
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
How would that even be possible since you have already demonstrated your erroneous understanding of the Church Fathers?
I
itinerant1
Guest
What does Darwin have to do with the issue. Even if Darwin never existed creationism/fundamentalism and Biblical Literalism would still be naive and simplistic. In fact it pre-dates Darwin in the Protestant sector.
C
cassini
Guest
itinerant, no doubt you are suggesting St Thomas allowed for a 15.5 billion year age for creation? There were a couple who did not adhere to a literal six day creation but 99.99% of them did. The other two I think acknowledged an instant creation on day 1, then Noah, then Christ, all within biblical chronology.
I
itinerant1
Guest
There is clearly a cynical attitude about science evident in this thread. It’s an unbalanced and unjustifiable position that tries to skew Church history and theology to its own view.
It’s the kind of prejudice that finds its correction in Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II.
It’s the kind of prejudice that finds its correction in Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II.
I
itinerant1
Guest
No doubt you are not making much sense here.
Your 99.99% figure is gratuitous. I could just as easily say that 67.5% of all statistics are bogus.
Patristic commentaries tended more toward allegorical interpretations, not literal.
The instant creation view was not an instant creation on day 1, which you would know if you had read much of the Church Fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school.
Certainly the greatest theologian among the Church Fathers, St. Augustine, concluded that the six days cannot be literal. No one studied Genesis 1 more, or wrote as much about as did St. Augustine. And Aquinas considered Augustine’s view the best reasoned view among the church Fathers, et al.
It’s common for creationists to make the false statement that there was a consensus of interpretation on Genesis 1 among the church fathers.
And how many creationists have read St. Augustine’s warning against using the Bible to contradict science? I would say 99.99% have not. LOL
I
itinerant1
Guest
A sound warning by St. Augustine against the misuse of Scripture:
“It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth and the sky, or the other elements of this world—respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark as east is from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy making mistakes on the subject which they know perfectly; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt?
“It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.”
(De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I, cap. XIX)
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the Galileo controversy issued a similar warning in the year 1616:
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve around the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
“It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth and the sky, or the other elements of this world—respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark as east is from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy making mistakes on the subject which they know perfectly; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt?
“It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.”
(De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I, cap. XIX)
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the Galileo controversy issued a similar warning in the year 1616:
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve around the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
K
kimmielittle
Guest
AND me…I have meatisaur teeth
- Status