M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, afraid of being wrong…
Really applicable (incredulity) to any nay sayer of either position.
Really applicable (incredulity) to any nay sayer of either position.
Last edited:
- Status
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
You seem to be determined to make this confrontational. I makes me wonder whether you read anything that I wrote above. I wasn’t blaming Protestantism for anything. I was outlining some of the historical consequences of the Protestant Reformation. You are the one who is being hostile and defensive.
Russia is a good example. If you read what I wrote in my reply above, you will have seen that I gave the Byzantine missions to the Slavs as an example of a historical event upon which much subsequent history was contingent. Let us consider ways in which history could have developed very differently if the missions of Cyril and Methodius had not taken place. Indeed, you will note that I am making the presumption that the Byzantine missions to the Slavs in the 9th century led to the Christianization of Kievan Rus’ in the 10th century.
If most of the Slavic world, and in particular Russia, had not been drawn into the Byzantine, and hence Eastern Orthodox, sphere of influence, what would the alternatives have been, and how would this have affected subsequent history?
Russia would presumably have followed one of three possible courses: (1) it remained pagan, (2) it was Christianized by western missionaries (who had previously made unsuccessful attempts to evangelize the Slavs), (3) it was converted to another religion, such as Islam. In the event of (2), Russia would either have been a Catholic country or, during the Reformation, might have become a Protestant country. Any one of these possibilities would have had consequences both for the internal development of the Russian state and society and for its relations with its neighbors and the wider world.
For example, the missions to the Slavs led to there being a literary culture in Slavic eastern Europe and hence to literacy and the development of state bureaucracies. In Russia, monasticism had a crucial role in deforestation and the development of agriculture and urbanization. The centralization of power in Russia during the 15th century, and the emergence of Moscow as a city of international prestige, was to a large extent prompted by the Russian Church’s breach with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its rejection of the Council of Florence. If Russia had been pagan or Catholic or Muslim, these developments would not have happened or would have happened very differently.
International relations in central and eastern Europe would also, of course, have developed very differently if countries such as Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria had developed as part of the same cultural sphere as countries such as Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Or consider in particular the long history of conflicts between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. It is an incredibly complicated subject, and I am necessarily only sketching out a handful of very superficial ideas, but hopefully you will see the point that I was trying to make.
M
mcq72
Guest
Not sure blaming is correct word, for I took it more as cause and effect, which is pretty close to “consequences”.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I would argue that science does not demonstrate the earth “appears very old,” once what we can demonstrate from science, it can be demonstrated that it is young.
M
mcq72
Guest
Very good point. Yet for example, when He created Adam, on his first day how old did he appear to be?
M
mcq72
Guest
By the way, can anyone answer how God created light on day one, and the sun moon and stars on day 4?
And Adam and Eve were told to “replenish” the earth, as in " restock" ?
And Adam and Eve were told to “replenish” the earth, as in " restock" ?
M
Mishakel
Guest
In Revelation 22:5 John is describing the New Jerusalem. He says “There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.”
All things are possible with God. Since there will be no need for a sun in the future it’s very possible with God, there was no need for a sun on the 1st day.
B
Bill6
Guest
Greetings in Christ, the Early Church had a diversity of opiniom on this topic. Some did embrace the Young Earth view, others didn’t. Obviously, there was no big bang theory or Darwinism. From an exegetical perpective though, some Early Christians viewed the Hebrew word in Genesis for day (yom) as repersenting a long period of time.
If the Protestant revolt never occured, we’d probably have what we have now in the Church- some believe in Young Earth Creationism, others Old Earth Creationism, others theistic evolution. The Holy See permits mnay different views. So there is nothing wrong with Catholics having healthy debate on this topic.
God bless and Mary keep you.
If the Protestant revolt never occured, we’d probably have what we have now in the Church- some believe in Young Earth Creationism, others Old Earth Creationism, others theistic evolution. The Holy See permits mnay different views. So there is nothing wrong with Catholics having healthy debate on this topic.
God bless and Mary keep you.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, but then why did God have to create light if He was light, and then seperate it into day and night?
M
Mishakel
Guest
Are you really, honestly attempting to fully understand all the ways of God? How did God know every thought you will have before he spoke the universe into existence?
There are plenty of questions concerning God’s ways we will never learn the answer to in this life. We also don’t need all those answers. It’s where faith comes in. I have complete faith in God and his will and that’s enough. I can ask the how and why in the next life
B
Bernoulli
Guest
According to cosmology, light existed a long time before stars, nowadays observed as cosmic background radiation, but at that time it would have been orange in color.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok…thanks…now the night and day aspect of it remains as a question.
I joke that day one’s light was God’s shop light, which gave Him light to work on day 2 and three stuff, and until He made the stars.
M
mcq72
Guest
Understand, yes, knowing full well ( pun) we now see thru a glass darkly, and later face to face, fully.
Comprehending Him, even thru His creation, is magnificent, and how else would the psalmist say how we are fearfully and wonderfully made had he not pondered the matter.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes that is good but i wouldn’t make it a “sola”.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Excellent point. When God created Adam, He created him as a fully grown man. Yet, he was only one day old - essentially a newborn, even though Adam “appeared” to be an adult. However, in terms of the universe and the earth, there are no really solid scientific arguments for an “old earth” & “old universe” that creation scientists cannot answer scientifically that at first glance they “appear” old, the actual science does not support those positions.
Last edited:
I
Ilkka
Guest
Young Earth creationism is the rarest form of creationist thought. I used to be a YEC when I was still a fundamentalist protestant. Now that I have come to accept and embrace the fullness of truth in Catholic Christianity, I have forsaken the YEC beliefs. However, I would still consider myself a creationist as I have come to realize things like theistic evolution and the Earth being hundreds of millions of years old aren’t actually undermining any central aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
M
mcq72
Guest
I would say a young earth is a much sharper double edged sword cutting the divide between God and man more keenly and intimately. God is not so " distant" from His creation, from you and me, even from our time point of view.
From a Catholic point of view, it is like the difference in perceived experience of a real presence in the eucharistic communion and a symbolic only, or from Mary being immaculate and co redemptrix and ever virgin to her not being so…again from Catholic point of view. ( I find communion and Mary from my protestant view just as intimate and even moreso).
Again a young earth is a more wonderous faith to a new believer, the literalness of His written Word making " all things new" and not slack in His redemption, in my experience.
PS…as a new believer in Christ years ago I was reading the newspaper and towards the back was a very small article citing a university study of the correlation of measured continental rainfall and measured yearly sediment deposited by Missisippi River in the gulf. The article casually noted a very large deposit that indicated a rainfall enough to cover the Rockies. Just as casually the time noted was about six thousand years ago if I recall correctly. It cited the university which I think was a California state university where I was living at the time. It made zero biblical reference. It blew me away, like truth and wisdom crying from the rooftops but only a few could hear it.
Last edited:
I
Ilkka
Guest
Sure. However, we should not position ourselves in opposition to truths discovered by science. Literalism is very appealing to new converts because it let’s them have this perceived personal revelation from Scripture but it could very well be argued that from a holistic view, this is not for the benefit of the individual believer.
Many YEC ministers make it seem like salvation depends on what we believe about creation. For example, CMI ministers make the claim that belief in theistic evolution undermines the purpose and necessity of God’s salvific work, culminated on Calvary.
When I still held these beliefs, I saw mainstream science as the enemy. I was very skeptical of many scientific facts and I often defended the very opposite as if it was divine revelation. This only made me defend the wrong things and get upset every time I saw or heard someone sharing a view different from mine. I thought I was defending God’s truth from devilish lies.
Upon realizing that (theistic) evolution and other facts supported by science are not necessarily in opposition to revealed divine truth, I have found it much easier to ignore opinions I disagree with unless the Bible or Church are explicitly against them. And even then I can go wisely about it and not immediately start a heated argument. (That is something I’m still learning.)
So as a whole, not holding to strong convictions about things that are not central to the faith, could actually be a better way to go. By doing this we can avoid building our faith on beliefs that may be wrong. If we build our faith on beliefs that may be wrong and they are found to be wrong at some point, it is very easy to start doubting many other, more central aspects of the faith as well. I’ve experienced this and for a new convert it is a very terrible place to be.
I should add that in no way do I intend to mean that YEC is definitely in the wrong or that it is correct either. I’m simply saying that not making up one’s mind can save from many errors and sorrows.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Thank you ikka…i was going to add to my post that I am not dogmatic on this, that many believers have contrary views( interestingly have same attitude about some Marion doctrine and communion views).
May I ask if you believe early man living hundreds of years, like Adam to Noah? Did Jonah indeed get swallowed by a large sea creature, or did David slay a Goliath or Sampson many with a bone, was there a world wide flood or was it just " local" , did Moses part the sea, etc?
May I ask if you believe early man living hundreds of years, like Adam to Noah? Did Jonah indeed get swallowed by a large sea creature, or did David slay a Goliath or Sampson many with a bone, was there a world wide flood or was it just " local" , did Moses part the sea, etc?
Last edited:
I
Ilkka
Guest
Sure I believe early men lived hundreds of years. We know there are animals that live hundreds of years. For a living organism, we can conclude, it is possible to sustain itself for hundreds of years.
About Jonah I’m not sure but I tend to believe that he did get swallowed by a large sea mammal like a whale. It is certainly possible.
And yes, I believe David did slay Goliath. And I do believe Samson had extraordinary strength. We know that even today people possess extraordinary capabilities, some by birth, some learned, some by using dope, some from disorders, some as divine gifts and some from demonic possession.
And yeah, I do believe Moses parted the sea and that the Egyptians chasing after the Israelites really did die.
Last edited:
- Status