 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 08:32 pm |
|
I know I was treading on dangerous ground but I got myself into a creation/evolution debate with a pastor from a non-denominational christian church. It was for a classroom group and actually went very well. I think the kids got alot out of it. I was able to hold my own on the science and keep the science and theology separate until the end. On a few of the last points, he had no scientific response but came back twice to the "credibility of God" and the idea that if evolution is true, God/Jesus lied in the bible. Apart from the obvious fallacies in logic, I am thinking that there must be a better rebuttal to a literal creation-based biblical argument.
He cited 2 Timothy that all scripture is inspired by God and that Jesus in Matthew 19 and Corninthians 15 suppoted the account of creation in Genesis. He also cited Romans 1 about seeing evidence of God in creation.
I gave the example of some other areas where literal translation is a problem ("I am the vine", parables, "hardening of the heart") and also pointed out that there are many Old Testament laws that are changed by Jesus in the new covenant and that Jesus rejected things from "an eye for an eye" to working on the sabbath. If one is to take the entire bible literally and Jesus is God then, both Hebrew and Christian "laws" cannot logically co-exist.
What am I missing? Is there other biblical support for a view other than literal creation?
Of course, there is my favorite part
Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 09:18 pm |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: I know I was treading on dangerous ground but I got myself into a creation/evolution debate with a pastor from a non-denominational christian church. It was for a classroom group and actually went very well. I think the kids got alot out of it. I was able to hold my own on the science and keep the science and theology separate until the end. On a few of the last points, he had no scientific response but came back twice to the "credibility of God" and the idea that if evolution is true, God/Jesus lied in the bible. Apart from the obvious fallacies in logic, I am thinking that there must be a better rebuttal to a literal creation-based biblical argument.
First of all, John Paul II stated plainly that there cannot be contradiction between faith and science because God is the author of both.
Catholics, as you know, do not accept a literal interpretation of scripture. We especially see the Old Testament as a library containing various forms of literature. However, in the instance of the creation story, there are certain guidelines our Church tells us to follow. You can find more on the Church's teachings regarding creation in this Faith Fact from Catholics United for the Faith.
The evidence of evolution is real. God cannot have created a false scientific record because God is the author of Truth, not deception. The devil cannot have created a false scientific record because the devil cannot create. Therefore the scientific record must be real. If it is not, then God has no credibility since God would have to have created deception.
So assuming that the creation story is real (but not necessarily literal) and that the evidence of evolution is real, how can we reconcile both?
In my opinion, we do so by believing in a creation planned, instituted, and guided by a loving God in a manner that we do not understand. Science is gradually gaining more and more information leading to a fuller understanding, but there are two questions they cannot even begin to answer.
1. Science teaches that matter and energy are a constant that cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Where did they begin? At what point were matter and energy created? Science has no answer. They can only say that the combination of matter and energy has been constant since the first moment of time, the "Big Bang". But what about the moment before the beginning of time?
2. Speaking of the "Big Bang": Science teaches a law of entropy, in which a body at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force, and a body at motion remains at motion until acted upon by an outside force. In the moment before the "Big Bang" the universe was at rest. What was the "Outside Force" that gave creation its impetus? This is often referred to as the "Prime Mover". What is the Prime Mover that started the entire process of creation?
In my opinion, the "Prime Mover" spoke the Word, and the Spirit of God created the heavens and the earth.
I accept evolution, but I accept it as guided by a loving God every step of the way. Further, I believe creation continues today, and each and every moment is a new creation.
I believe in miracles, but I believe that the greatest miracle is that God at the moment of the creation of the universe knew that I would be sitting at my keyboard typing this message at this moment.
Evolution, natural selection, and all the other scientific evidence make sense, but only when a loving God is added into the mix. God working through nature is logical; God working apart from nature is not logical, since nature itself is a creation of God, and God would be working at cross-purposes to God's own plan. Everything is unified in a way we do not understand and never will, and that's part of God's plan, too.
And let me bring out another point with a story.
A little boy asked his father, a doctor, where he came from. The father, wishing to be honest to his son, launched into an explanation of human biology and reproduction. When he was finished, he asked his son what he thought.
The little boy was quiet for a moment, then said, "My friend Jimmy said he came from Pittsburgh."
The creation story in Genesis was appropriate for the people at the time. When Jesus spoke of creation, he did it in a way that the people of his time could understand. As God he certainly knew such things as nuclear physics, but he chose to read by the light of an oil lamp rather than create the light bulb, because his actions were appropriate for the people of his time. He certainly could have lived in an air conditioned palace, driven in a brand new limo, and worn Armani suits, but he chose not to. He lived in a stone house, rode on the back of a donkey or walked, and wore the clothing of his day. Why? Because the people he ministered to would not have understood anything else.
And here is an article from This Rock magazine on the relationship between evolution and the Magisterium.
Finally, it should be noted that the method of creation used by God is not a matter of faith or morals but of science, so the Church does not teach infallibly the manner in which God created all things. We are obliged to believe that creation is of God and that we are all descended from a single pair of ancestors, but otherwise we are free to discuss, debate, and believe any theory we choose, including literal creationism.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 10:19 pm |
|
| I am ok with all of the above and if one must apply labels, find myself falling under theistic evolutionist. However, I was having a discussion as a science teacher with a literal creationist and found myself lacking in support for the theistic part. Using the catholic teaching would not work in this case and I was wondering if there is any other strictly scriptural argument or interpretations that could be used to counter his statements in a debate-like forum--ie "test everything" from Thessolonians.
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 12:09 pm |
|
| There is no proof of macroevolution, that is, of one species being transformed into another species. None. Nada. There is evidence which can be interpreted to mean that, but other evidence, loads of it, that speak to a sudden appearance of life at a specific time. With all the billions of fossils found, there are none that have been proven to be intermediate between one species and another. Isn't that odd? Please look into this at least a little bit. At my RCIA class the other night, the teacher said that there is proof of human evolution. There is NONE. There are scientists (I've worked with them) who refuse to give God ANY hand in the matter and do any and everything they can to convolute the evidence and make it look like it all happened naturally and without His help. At least look into the scientific evidence for special creation before you give in to the naturalists. They do not hold all the cards, by any means!
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
I think the point here is that the Church teaches that God is the creator and that Faith will not contradict reason/science. The church then admits that the exact method of creation has not been proven beyond doubt. Given the evidence on hand in 1200, the world could not be pr0ven not to be flat, so lack of proof is not proof of the opposite. I am not saying that science proves JillD wrong or Rick right, I am saying the Churches position is that the method of creation is open to discovery because as humans, we have limited scienctific knowledge at all times.
This is probably a wise position because I have seen too many atheistic scientist make fools of themselves by denying the obvious necessity of a "prime mover" in evolution or stretching a single piece of bone to identify a whole creature and an equal number of literal creationists make fools of themselves saying that any scientific facts or natural laws that don't agree with their position must be the work of the devil and thus not true(this was implied in a Bob Jones Geography textbook I taught from once).
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 7 months and 16
|
|
|
SBC2RCC
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | York, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Monte | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | was Southern Baptist Minister, now Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21st, 2006 08:59 pm |
|
Great comments Jill, and Rick, and MrsMoo.
This is such a volatile issue. WHat I want to weigh in with is my firm conviction that this is a battleground for the enemies of faith. There is a concerted effort on the part of those who are anti-God, not just atheistic, to continue the practice of "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." These folks win points by the insistence that they are scientists, and know more about the facts than those who merely observe as amateurs. Yet, much needs to be said for there being large holes in the so called evidence for evolution. (I will also agree that "creatioinists" also often make ridiculous statements)
Again, the issue is that there are those who speak strongly, stridently, against God having anything to do with creation. They also openly mock those who have a faith in a Creator. They mock our Pope for any discussion of these issues which are held to be the sole province of "science." They mock God, and thus, this issue becomes a battlefield.
Let us constantly affirm our faith in a Creator. And let us not give up the field of study to those who deny the very possibility or any consideration that such a creator exists.
____________________
In Christ,
Monte W
(Formerly on CHN Forum as "Pilgrim Paul"
Minima Maxima Sunt
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 08:30 am |
|
Greetings,
I think it takes a lot of faith to accept either theory. There is no proof for either as well as BIG questions within both.
To be honest however regarding my thinking, I have trouble with the idea of half of Jesus and all of Mary coming from an ape! 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 340 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 09:19 pm |
|
I just wonder....
How can every word in the bible be "literally" true, when the very first chapter has two different versions? I was sooo confused, right from the beginning!
I, personally, believe that there is evolution, in that different things lived at different times, and species change within themselves. I think prehistoric man was possible, so long as we are talking about man. I don't think man came from apes, came from, fish, came from slugs, came from slime, simply because, it seems like it would still be happening, today. Where are the orignial slimes? Did they just stop existing after three or four (or 100) changed? And, why wouldn't this still be happening, today, in some form? Why aren't there any "in-betweens", now? Of any kind? Is evolution done, now? When did it stop? What sense does the world, or life, make, if we all just happen to be? And why would anyone want that to be true?
I watched a "Darwin" program a few nights ago. It talked about how different species came to the Galapagos islands and then "evolved' there. But, how did Darwin know that? Why didn't the species he was used to come from there, instead of travel to there? How did he have the "initial" information, from where his entire theory sprang? Not that I actually know anything, myself. But, I'm not changing the minds of the whole world, either.
Love,
Laura
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 248 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 01:53 am |
|
Truthseeker wrote...I, personally, believe that there is evolution, in that different things lived at different times, and species change within themselves...
Love,
Laura
Laura,
It seems you and I think the same way about evolution. I agree... I think that it is possible that species change within themselves, but I don't really think that they do outside of themselves.
I read a couple of years ago that some scientists somewhere claimed that the "Neanderthal" man was found to have been stooped and formed like an ape because he had a bad back - or something to that effect. That's possible, isn't it? OK, some of you more scientific types might find that laughable, I don't know, but sounds good to me! 
Anyway, I guess my point is that it is possible for scientists to be wrong. How do they know exactly what's going on? They weren't there. All they have is bones and fossils to work with. They don't have the whole story. Besides, I thought that Darwin's theory of evolution had been all but ditched in recent times. Even Darwin himself, towards the end, had doubts about his own theory, didn't he?
And I like what BodRod said about it being hard to believe that Jesus and Mary came from apes...
JMJ
- Cheri
Last edited on Thu Oct 26th, 2006 09:28 pm by Talithacumi
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 06:33 am |
|
| I believe there are changes within the species. Look at all the types of dogs we have. However, they are still dogs. One of the problems I have with evolution is that the scientific process is not being followed. Instead of looking at the evidence and then drawing the conclusion the evolutionist forms a conclusion and is looking for evidence to support it. They also get very upset (I have had some stop talking to me) when it is mentioned that it takes "faith" to believe in either. The concept of "faith" is hard for them to take. However, according to Hebrews 11, if we do not have evidence to support our beliefs, but we still believe, then we are using faith.
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 12:13 pm |
|
| Yep, it's the old "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it" phenomenon.
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31st, 2006 11:05 pm |
|
Wow! I did not mean to stir up such controversy.
I agree that both sides require faith and proof is lacking. I know there are many scientists who leave no room for God and many creationists who leave no room for science. Neither side has a monopoly on truth. ANY good scientist should always be willing to revise their hypothesis if new evidence requires it.
The person I was debating is not catholic so I am limited to using the bible in my discussions. He insists upon a very literal interpretation but I find it interesting that he wants to read Genesis literally but cannot accept John 6:54 literally. Yet, I do understand it in someways because I struggle with the opposite problem. I have trouble reconciling taking John literally with no "evidence" and yet assuming that there must be some figurative language or other explanation in Genesis since I see evidence to the contrary.
The only logical positions are to be a catholic creationist or an agnostic :-) I don't fit either of those so I keep meandering along and sometimes I think I come back to the scientific because it is more in my comfort zone--not that anything there sheds any new light but it is just familiar and that is a better place to be when overwhelmed or frustrated. At least in this area, I know what my questions are.
Laura and Cheri--you are both talking about microevolution vs macroevolution. There is much evidence for micro but little for macro.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 10:47 pm |
|
Bible in Bold. My comments in regular.
1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
For those who claim that Genesis does not agree with the Big Bang theory, please note the brevity and power of these words. God created heaven (or "the heavens" per the NRSV) and the earth.
God, knowing that primitive man would not long want to linger on the creation of the sun and moon and stars but would be more interested in the creation of the earth in which they dwell, as even we are, simply said, "created heaven."
2 And the earth was void and empty,
This is precisely the description which Scientists give to the earth when it was first born. It was a void much like Venus is today.
Quote: A terrestrial planet, it is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet", as the two are similar in size and bulk composition. The planet is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds and its surface cannot be seen from space in visible light, making it a subject of great speculation until some of its secrets were revealed by planetary science in the 20th century. Venus has the densest atmosphere of the terrestrial planets, consisting mostly of carbon dioxide, and the atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 90 times that of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
And just like Venus, the earth must have been covered in mist and clouds so that no light could penetrate the surface.
and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
But the Spirit of Life, the Spirit which quickeneth was already over the waters. This is where science agrees, life began.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
And the clouds were withdrawn.
4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.
The void began to take form and the earth began to spin on is axis.
5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
The first day.
6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Interestingly enough, until the advent of modern science, no one knew that there is more water in space than there is on earth. And no one knew that there is a firmament, known as the "magnetic field" which protects the water on this earth from joining the water in space.
The second day.
Quote: Mars, which has little or no magnetic field, is thought to have lost much of its former oceans and atmosphere to space. This loss was caused, at least in part, by the direct impact of the solar wind on Mars' upper atmosphere. Earth's other close planetary neighbor, Venus, has no appreciable magnetic field, either. Venus is also thought to have lost nearly all of its water to space, in large part owing to solar wind-powered ablation.
http://www.resonancepub.com/magnetosphere.htm
9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. 10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Self explanatory.
Quote: Originally Posted by Douay Rheims commentary 6 "A firmament"... By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Note that this happened after the waters, which had previously been overshadowed by the Spirit of God had receded.
12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind.
Many creationists object that these verses make it impossible for say, a coconut tree to evolve to a different kind of tree because it says, "yield seed according to its kind." I don't see that. Before we get too far, I believe in Intelligent Design. Therefore, God is always in the picture.
But even so, a plant that is evolving will always "yield seed according to its kind". If it doesn't, it won't be able to reproduce. The changes are miniscule and only amount to much over many eons. That is why the search for a so called "missing link" is ridiculous. There are many examples of "missing links" such as in the history of the horse, from eohippus to horse. What else do they want?
And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
The third day.
14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
This one is continued below, but let me interject. Although we said that the clouds had been cleared off before, science agrees that the earth was covered by mist and clouds originally. The earth was much like a sauna. It is possible that as yet, the sun, moon and stars were still not clearly visible.
16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. 17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. 18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day.
And that is why, in my opinion, we can say twice, that God made the lights. They were already there, but they weren't shining brightly into the surface of the earth.
20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
This agrees with science, except for one thing. Fowl or birds weren't created until many millions of year later than the first amphibians.
However, I remember from my youth, telling my grandmother that a whale wasn't a fish. I couldn't make her believe it. In the same way, would it have made any sense to tell anyone that pteradactyls and pterasaurs weren't birds. Oh and there is no evidence that pteradactyls and pterasaurs evolved from anything. The earliest fossils show that they always flew.
Quote: Originally Posted by Douay Rheims commentary 16 "Two great lights"... God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.
21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. 23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
The fifth day.
24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Again, this agrees with science.
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness:
Little did ancient man know the meaning of this plural form. "Our image". After many centuries, Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God in the Holy Trinity. And even then, it took many more centuries for the Holy Spirit to lead the Catholic Church into the fullness of Truth concerning this mystery. And possibly the entire Truth hasn't yet been sounded.
and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Man is not simply the male person. Man is complete as man and woman. Husband and Wife united in love are a reflection of the Holy Trinity.
28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Quote: Originally Posted by Douay Rheims commentary 26 "Let us make man to our image"... This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity.
28 "Increase and multiply"... This is not a precept, as some Protestant controvertists would have it, but a blessing, rendering them fruitful; for God had said the same words to the fishes, and birds, (ver. 22) who were incapable of receiving a precept.
31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.
The sixth day.
Does that help?
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 09:44 pm |
|
Wow! Yes this definately helps. I especially like the explanation for firmament since that is one point he kept coming back to again and again. He has sent me copies of his slides and I have been stockpiling tidbits here and there as he is very willing to discuss (we may get to it by summer) I would like to have the students see that there is a middle ground where science and theology can co-exist. Right now, many of them view all science as "lying" or dead wrong because it does not fit into their beliefs and that is a shame.
Thank you for taking the time to put that together!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 12:24 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: Wow! Yes this definately helps. I especially like the explanation for firmament since that is one point he kept coming back to again and again. He has sent me copies of his slides and I have been stockpiling tidbits here and there as he is very willing to discuss (we may get to it by summer) I would like to have the students see that there is a middle ground where science and theology can co-exist. Right now, many of them view all science as "lying" or dead wrong because it does not fit into their beliefs and that is a shame.
Our Church teaches us that science and scripture are both revelations of the same reality by our God, and so they cannot contradict if they are properly understood. And as science discovers more, the two draw closer together. We must keep in mind that references to the physical universe in scripture represent the understanding at the time, which is not the same understanding that we have today. Scripture is not a science text, just like it is not a history book. It contains science and it contains history, but they are secondary to the message of faith.
Ten years ago, we had nine planets. Today we have eight. Science has redefined the definition of "planet". That doesn't change the reality of the universe, but it changes what is being taught in textbooks.
When I was in elementary school, it was generally accepted knowledge that the world would end in a nuclear holocaust. The only question was when, and who would push the button first. We knew without a shadow of a doubt that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would cause someone to use them, and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction would make sure that if the button was pushed, the world would be destroyed. The Soviet premier banged his shoe on the table at the U.N. and guaranteed that they would bury us. Two decades earlier, Hitler was certain he would create an Aryan super nation that would control the world. And none of it happened. The end of the world was coming every few years, and yet it never happened. Someone wrote a book called the Population Bomb which predicted that overpopulation would cause the destruction of the world economy by 1980, and in the 70's we knew we would run out of oil before the end of the 20th century. They were all wrong.
A hundred years ago, the Book of Genesis was considered pure fiction. Today, we have the Big Bang Theory to explain the creation of the universe (as in, "Let there be light!"), and an ultimate ancestress known as Mitochondrial Eve to whom all our mitochondrial DNA can be traced. Many scientists promote a form of Intelligent Design that supposes an evolutionary process guided by a Supreme Intelligence (whom we call God) as the most logical form of our existence. The reality of the message of scripture is drawing closer to the reality of the knowledge of science as our knowledge of both progresses.
So what has changed? Not scripture, although our understanding of it has evolved. What has changed is scientific understanding. As a race we have met every challenge and overcome it. We have avoided nuclear war, beaten the despots, increased our population beyond its supposed limits, conquered diseases, fought poverty, reduced genocide, found more oil, increased the use of renewable resources, increased our contributions to charitable organizations, and brought democratic governments to areas that had never known them before. Half the world was communist in the 60's; all but a handful of those countries have elected governments today.
We have not done enough, and we still have a very long way to go to reverse the damage we have done to our environment. We still live under a nuclear threat that may be more serious today than at any time in the past, although MAD does not appear to be an option today. We have not solved our energy problems; we have only postponed them. We face Global Warming, which may be the greatest threat of all.
Excuse the tirade, but it really is relevant. Science and faith are drawing closer together. We are becoming better stewards of the gifts God gave us. We are making a greater effort to take care of the least of God's people. We are not doing enough, and we're not doing it fast enough, but improvements are nonetheless being made.
Science and scripture are getting closer together. Now if we could only stop being "politically correct" and identify things such as homosexual marriage, cohabitation, abortion, birth control, pollution, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, lack of health care, famine, illness, euthanasia, and the death penalty as evil and contrary to God's plan, we could start making real progress at being the creatures God wants us to be!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 03:04 am |
|
 AMEN!
I enjoyed that!
Thank You! Another wonderfully stated comment, Or comments.
I believe I'll print that for my son the Science Major.
Thank you again Rick, I so enjoy your writings and learn so much.
Betty
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 10:06 am |
|
Hi Rick,
I think I’ll disagree with you one the homosexual inclusion. Studies over the past 15 years or so, in the Americas and Europe, are producing a growing pile of evidence which supports the idea that homosexuality is the result of biological elements in the environment of the unborn child and not a matter of choice. The belief that homosexual behavior is a sin is based on the beliefs of the time when that portion of the Old Testament was written. The writers of the Bible did not know about antibodies, DNA marker Xq28, birth order etc. I think that several churches (not just the RCC) are going to eat their words on this subject sometime in the future. Remember the story about Joshua stopping the sun? It is the same kind of idea. We know these days that the sun does not go around the earth therefore, Joshua did not stop the sun. It was an expression of the belief of the times.
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
BodRod wrote: I think I’ll disagree with you one the homosexual inclusion.
Please notice that my reference was not to homosexual orientation, but specifically to homosexual marriage. I could have broadened it to homosexual behavior, but neither I nor the Church believes that homosexuality (as in same sex attraction) in and of itself is sinful.
According to God's plan of procreation, a family is made up of a man, a woman, and a child or children. Anything else, while sometimes necessary, is a deviation from the norm and should be recognized as such. Those who are not in a sacramental, heterosexual marriage are called to be celibate. To place the sex act into any other context is to cheapen God's creative power to recreation instead of creation, and our Church affirms that recreational sex in any context is evil.
If in fact it is ever proven that homosexuality is biologically oriented, then it will be a birth defect to be borne like a defective heart or a missing limb or any other birth defect. God calls us to create life, or to willingly give up our creative power to advance the the Kingdom of God. Biology compels us to pass our genes on to the next generation. Homosexual unions allow for neither. Biologically, homosexuality is a disorder because it is a genetic dead end. Attempts to circumvent nature by artificial insemination, cloning, etc., are equally condemned by our Church. I can see the Church some day moderating its position on artificial insemination for married couples who are having difficulty conceiving, but I do not see the position on homosexual behavior or gay marriage ever changing.
Our Church demands equal rights for gay couples, protection of rights of the partners such as the right to inherit, to health care, to participate in medical decisions, and to equal treatment under the law. It demands the same rights for unmarried heterosexual couples. But it condemns cheapening God's plan by placing those couples on an equal footing with those heterosexual couples who are living according to the plan God set in place at our creation.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 01:53 pm |
|
| You have a point. Since homosexuals do not reproduce, as bi-sexuals can, they will never be in the majority and therefore never be the norm. BTW, I don't expect any significant changes in religious attitdes to come in our lifetime. I'd give it another 400 to 3000 years!
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31st, 2006 06:46 pm |
|
Hi Rick,
I think I’ll disagree with you one the homosexual inclusion. Studies over the past 15 years or so, in the Americas and Europe, are producing a growing pile of evidence which supports the idea that homosexuality is the result of biological elements in the environment of the unborn child and not a matter of choice.
About 15 years ago, a study came out that said coffee was bad for you. Five years later a study came out that said that coffee was good for you.&nbs | | |
