B
buffalo
Guest
Good thing us Catholics have the understanding of what the author intended to convey and faithfully passed on for 2,000 years.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
No one here should have an issue with properly reasoned empirical science.So, Jesus didn’t make the world that science studies?
T
TMC
Guest
If Job is literal, there is a lot more in there to contend with. Snow and hail are stored in the sky and thrown down during storms, etc. Also Genesis says the sky is a dome, with water above it (which is presumably why its blue (?)) Is that literal?Job 37:18. Read your Bible, buffalo.
T
tafan2
Guest
And yet no one will answer my questions, despite this good understanding.
R
rossum
Guest
So you have no problem with using science to help you to find the correct interpretation of the Bible. Why do you make an exception for evolution? The Catholic Church has no problem with man’s material body (not his soul) being formed by evolutionary processes.The Bible as to what the author intended to convey. This is basic literal vs literalistic. Don’t forget you are on a Catholic site.
You are rejecting the evidence of the world that God made.
B
buffalo
Guest
Divine Revelations interpretation is not governed by flawed human reasoning of science.So you have no problem with using science to help you to find the correct interpretation of the Bible.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is not one magisterial statement that confirms molecules to man evolution.The Catholic Church has no problem with man’s material body (not his soul) being formed by evolutionary processes.
B
Bernoulli
Guest
I doubt this is the earliest source. The Hebrew Calendar in the Middle Ages counted years after the creation and it was based on rabbinical calculations. In the Byzantine Calendar, the creation was in 5509 BC, which was calculated based on the Septuagint.Young Earth Creationism relies on the work of [Anglican] Church of Ireland Primate James Ussher’s work Annalium pars posterior in which he calculated that the Earth had been formed at nightfall on 22nd October 4004 BC according to the Julian Calendar.
This is found among Fundamentalists and I believe dates no earlier than the early part of the last century.
T
TomH1
Guest
I did not make any claim it was.I doubt this is the earliest source.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I understand science quite well, but what you call “evolution” is not scientific. Can we observe changes in the cell, which accounts for the countless variations of animal species? Yes. Can we use science to demonstrate these same changes in the cell account for some sort of ape-man like creature having descendants that branch out one way to become humans & another branch which becomes apes. No, we cannot. That is a hypothesis, not a theory, which is why the “theory” of evolution is not accurate. As far as the “decimal places” you are talking about, that is the result of lumping the term “evolution” to include speciation & “evolution” of mankind from a lower form of life, which has never been observed, nor can be demonstrated scientifically.By saying “proven” you are showing that you misunderstand the provisional nature of science. We have not yet discovered all that there is to discover in the universe, so nothing in science can be final. We may always find something new which changes our theories: a ‘Black Swan’ as it is often called.
Evolution is a very well established theory. It is accurate to 12 decimal places, while Einstein’s gravity is only accurate to 8 decimal places.
Then you cannot say with “finality” that science proves the earth & the universe are billions of years old, since science may demonstrate later they are both thousands of years old. In fact, there are scientists with PhDs who have attempted to demonstrate the latter.We have not yet discovered all that there is to discover in the universe, so nothing in science can be final.
But, again, the Bible is God-breathed, while science is not. And the Bible does not support evolution in the way supporters of it understand the term.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
It has been demonstrated in science that the speed of light is not constant. It has been manipulated to speed up, or in the case of black holes & other high gravity masses, slow down. We can only measure the speed of light returning from a known fixed point where it returning from. IOW, we cannot measure the speed of light from a point from billions of miles away, like we can light bouncing off a mirror & returning from the original point of origin. For all we know, when light leaves it’s origin, it is instantaneous, but when it bounces off something, it slows down.BTW how do they account for light from distant stars?
Also, the Bible states that God stretched the heavens, which means the universe was astronomically smaller thousands of years ago after God created the universe. This would mean the starlight traveling from the original point of where God created the stars - before He “stretched” them back - was considerably closer & would have reached the earth significantly sooner.
There is also something called “red-shifting” that you can research if you want. But ultimately, Creation is a miraculous work of God, just as the Resurrection of Jesus can. So, science cannot “prove” the universe & the earth are billions of years old. Rather, it supports a young earth & a young universe. The problem is even when Christians take the rest of the book of Genesis literally (the existence of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob), for some reason when it comes to the first 11 chapters of it - and more specifically the first few chapters - suddenly their exegesis of the text changes, because of what is being taught in science classes today.
Again, science cannot account for Creation, since it was an instantaneous miraculous act of God.
M
mcq72
Guest
How about this…I believe the earth is very old…He made it appear so instantaneously, or in about a week…lol…really thoughAgain, science cannot account for Creation, since it was an instantaneous miraculous act of God.
M
mcq72
Guest
Man’s conclusions to his observations have been wrong before big time.You are rejecting the evidence of the world that God made.
They observe water flow and waterfalls and see an end to water in the distant ocean, and conclude must be a big drop/ fall. They observe a sun rise and a sunset and conclude we have an orbiting sun.
Great observations, misguided conclusions.
One will find what they seek. God will not force His reality on us.
When my young children would see a white bearded red costumed jolly old man around Christmas time at the mall they would cheerfully ask, “Is that Santa Claus?” I would only say, “It certainly looks like Santa Claus”, hoping they would put away such jolly folly when they “matured”.
Last edited:
N
nearlycatholic
Guest
Oh no; here we go. Some Catholic guy again telling me every Tom, Dick, and Harry cannot pick up the Bible, say “well to me…” and privately come up with the truth. Exactly! That’s why God gave us the Church (the bulwark of truth) thanks twf!
M
mcq72
Guest
Why not? Otherwise you parallel once saved always saved, except on corporate level, once right always right.The Magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church) originally determined the canon of scripture…it also guides the correct interpretation of Scripture. Scripture can’t be divorced from the tradition that formed it.
Indeed the Church magisterium has got many things right, but to say it has never erred in dabbling in interpreting biblical science is off the mark…and consequently a “private interpretation”…that is not inspired or accountable to God.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Oh brother, why not just blame God for everything, this free will thing, with Adam and Eve, down to us. They did not bow down to God perfectly…and same choice/ problem exists today…it is not framework of not bowing obediently to church that messes things up…and it is error to think that those in magisteriums do not have same condition of needing to bow to God and have no free will to choose wrongly…Without Protestantism, would the 20th century have witnessed two world wars, the emergence of extreme far-right and far-left ideologies, and the development of weapons of mass destruction?
Who was it that said it is better not to judge a philosophy/ church by its abusers…I think twas Augustine…
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
I’m not blaming God for anything. I was citing examples of how all events in history are contingent upon preceding events. If you take my comments in full, I said that without Protestantism there may have been no British Empire, no United States of America, no industrial revolution, fewer (or different) scientific discoveries, a different course for humanism, no Enlightenment, different patterns of secularization and religious revival, and, finally, no world wars, no fascism, no communism, and no nuclear weapons. Please understand that these are not moral judgments, but suggestions of alternate ways in which history may have developed.
I think it is widely accepted that Protestantism exerted an important influence upon capitalism and the industrial revolution. Absent these factors, we would not have had the theories of Marx and Engels, and, even if we had had their theories, we would not have had the Russian Revolution and the foundation of the Soviet Union.
At the same time, without Protestantism, Prussia would not have developed as a culturally distinct, and ultimately dominant, region of the German-speaking world. If Prussia had not been Protestant, we would quite possibly never have seen the Partitions of Poland, nor the unification of Germany. The antisemitism of Martin Luther exerted a powerful influence upon Germany for hundreds of years after the publication of On the Jews and Their Lies. So, while Hitler himself was an Austrian Catholic who later repudiated Christianity entirely, it is possible that without Luther there would have been no Nazis.
At the same time, without Protestantism, the United Kingdom would probably never have existed, and, rather than the British Empire, there may simply have been the kingdoms of England and Ireland (in personal union) and an independent Scotland (perhaps either Henry VIII may have had a male heir by a Catholic wife who would have outlived Edward VI or Elizabeth I would have married a husband from Catholic Europe and produced an heir, meaning that James VI of Scotland would never have become king of England). The United States presumably would not have existed. Under the circumstances, even if something like the First World War had taken place, it would easily have been won by the Central Powers.
Of course, without the industrialization that followed the Protestant Reformation, especially in Great Britain, the manner in which war was waged would have been entirely different. There quite possibly would have been no aerial warfare.
Of course, these are just hypotheses. It is impossible to know how history would have developed if just one thing had occurred differently. One idea, Protestantism, quite possibly changed the entire course of history in more ways than one would immediately imagine. I am not suggesting that Martin Luther should be blamed for the Cold War, but it is possible to see how, without Martin Luther, the Cold War may never have happened. Similarly, the entire course of history would probably have been completely different without the conversion of Constantine, the founding of Islam by Muhammad, or the missions to the Slavs of Cyril and Methodius.
I think it is widely accepted that Protestantism exerted an important influence upon capitalism and the industrial revolution. Absent these factors, we would not have had the theories of Marx and Engels, and, even if we had had their theories, we would not have had the Russian Revolution and the foundation of the Soviet Union.
At the same time, without Protestantism, Prussia would not have developed as a culturally distinct, and ultimately dominant, region of the German-speaking world. If Prussia had not been Protestant, we would quite possibly never have seen the Partitions of Poland, nor the unification of Germany. The antisemitism of Martin Luther exerted a powerful influence upon Germany for hundreds of years after the publication of On the Jews and Their Lies. So, while Hitler himself was an Austrian Catholic who later repudiated Christianity entirely, it is possible that without Luther there would have been no Nazis.
At the same time, without Protestantism, the United Kingdom would probably never have existed, and, rather than the British Empire, there may simply have been the kingdoms of England and Ireland (in personal union) and an independent Scotland (perhaps either Henry VIII may have had a male heir by a Catholic wife who would have outlived Edward VI or Elizabeth I would have married a husband from Catholic Europe and produced an heir, meaning that James VI of Scotland would never have become king of England). The United States presumably would not have existed. Under the circumstances, even if something like the First World War had taken place, it would easily have been won by the Central Powers.
Of course, without the industrialization that followed the Protestant Reformation, especially in Great Britain, the manner in which war was waged would have been entirely different. There quite possibly would have been no aerial warfare.
Of course, these are just hypotheses. It is impossible to know how history would have developed if just one thing had occurred differently. One idea, Protestantism, quite possibly changed the entire course of history in more ways than one would immediately imagine. I am not suggesting that Martin Luther should be blamed for the Cold War, but it is possible to see how, without Martin Luther, the Cold War may never have happened. Similarly, the entire course of history would probably have been completely different without the conversion of Constantine, the founding of Islam by Muhammad, or the missions to the Slavs of Cyril and Methodius.
Last edited:
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
What difference does it make if someone has a private belief in creationism? They are allowed to believe thusly by the Church.
M
mcq72
Guest
How about this, if we had had a better Catholic Church we would not have had Orthodox or Protestants.
If we would have had a stronger spiritual reality in Russia as well as Germany ( one Catholic, one Protestant country,) we may not have had communism or fascism.
If we would have had a stronger spiritual reality in Russia as well as Germany ( one Catholic, one Protestant country,) we may not have had communism or fascism.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
An argument from incredulity?How about this…I believe the earth is very old…He made it appear so instantaneously, or in about a week…lol…really though
- Status
- Not open for further replies.