The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[John]

Come let us reason together:

1. man is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. therefore man is created in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Indeed 'the "Son" has existed for all eternity' so that when God said 'let us make man in our image and likeness' . . . I take it that the 'us' includes 'the Son of God', as well as the Father and the Spirit

Ding ding. we have a winner . :wink:

 

[Rick W]

St Francis,
I'm not here to prove a point is right or wrong. All I'm asking is to consider the possibility that...

1) Evolution is a theory that extrapolates backward far beyond actual creation to find another beginning.

2) The fish that fed the multitudes would indeed appear by all observable evidence to have age greater than just a few hours if that.

If we are to adhere to evolutionary thought to interpret scripture then Mary could not have been a virgin but delivered a child conceived in the only scientific and naturally accepted manner as all women always have. If we choose to abandon evolutionary mechanisms such as natural procreation to embrace the Virgin Birth then we are guilty of a "pick and choose" type of faith, judge scripture by our own wisdom and bend the Word of God in those areas we do not understand to something else that we can.
If we are to adhere to scientific conclusion then Christ could not have risen from the dead for nowhere have we experienced anyone throughout history absolutely known to be dead to live again. Christianity is based on the unscientific fact that Christ rose from the dead. And here's the kicker, you believe it without any evidence what-so-ever except the written testimony of a few disciples that they witnessed the risen Christ.

 

[St Francis]

Come let us reason together:

1. man is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. therefore man is created in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Indeed 'the "Son" has existed for all eternity' so that when God said 'let us make man in our image and likeness' . . . I take it that the 'us' includes 'the Son of God', as well as the Father and the Spirit.

The problem there is that when man was created, Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God, because Jesus Christ had not been born yet. The Son was pure spirit, the Second Person of the Trinity, but that Divine Nature had not yet been joined to the human nature of the man Jesus when man was created. I don't think that is too hard to understand.

 

[St Francis]

St Francis,
I'm not here to prove a point is right or wrong. All I'm asking is to consider the possibility that...

1) Evolution is a theory that extrapolates backward far beyond actual creation to find another beginning.

2) The fish that fed the multitudes would indeed appear by all observable evidence to have age greater than just a few hours if that.

If we are to adhere to evolutionary thought to interpret scripture then Mary could not have been a virgin but delivered a child conceived in the only scientific and naturally accepted manner as all women always have.....

I disagree with the all or nothing approach, that if we don't take Genesis 1 literaly we can't take anything literaly. There are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously to be taken literally, and there are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously NOT to be taken literally (like when God is said to have "wings" for example). I for one do not believe Genesis 1 was meant to take literaly

 

[John]

St Francis,
I'm not here to prove a point is right or wrong. All I'm asking is to consider the possibility that...

1) Evolution is a theory that extrapolates backward far beyond actual creation to find another beginning.

2) The fish that fed the multitudes would indeed appear by all observable evidence to have age greater than just a few hours if that.

If we are to adhere to evolutionary thought to interpret scripture then Mary could not have been a virgin but delivered a child conceived in the only scientific and naturally accepted manner as all women always have.....

I disagree with the all or nothing approach, that if we don't take Genesis 1 literaly we can't take anything literaly. There are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously to be taken literally, and there are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously NOT to be taken literally (like when God is said to have "wings" for example). I for one do not believe Genesis 1 was meant to take literaly

Who are you to decide? I for one see no reason why God almighty could not have made everything in 6 days.

 

[St Francis]

I disagree with the all or nothing approach, that if we don't take Genesis 1 literaly we can't take anything literaly. There are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously to be taken literally, and there are plenty of scriptures that are quite obviously NOT to be taken literally (like when God is said to have "wings" for example). I for one do not believe Genesis 1 was meant to take literaly

Who are you to decide? I for one see no reason why God almighty could not have made everything in 6 days.

I didn't decide anything. I am just stating my belief.

But since you brought it up, who are you to decide that it is to be taken literally?

 

[John]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-six-days[/url]

I understand it is your belief and that's fine i would just like for you to know that the logic behind it is flawed and not supported by scripture.

 

[St Francis]

In a previous post, I said:

"If you are asking me if God has the ability to create a world in 6 days that appears to be billions of years old, I would be forced to answer that He does have that capability. But the question is not what He is able to do, the question is: What really happened."

So, I am not saying that God is incapabale of such a thing, I'm just saying that I don't believe it actually happened that way.

God seems to mostly work within the rules. For example, when He sent Jesus to save us, Jesus didn't just appear out of thin air in a flash of light. He was born, went through childhood and adolescence, probaly broke a few bones and skinned a few knees, just like any other person. So there is no reason to think that God did not let the laws of growth & adaptation - which He Himself desigend - take their course during His creation of the world as well.

 

[John]

In a previous post, I said:

"If you are asking me if God has the ability to create a world in 6 days that appears to be billions of years old, I would be forced to answer that He does have that capability. But the question is not what He is able to do, the question is: What really happened."

So, I am not saying that God is incapabale of such a thing, I'm just saying that I don't believe it actually happened that way.

God seems to mostly work within the rules. For example, when He sent Jesus to save us, Jesus didn't just appear out of thin air in a flash of light. He was born, went through childhood and adolescence, probaly broke a few bones and skinned a few knees, just like any other person. So there is no reason to think that God did not let the laws of growth & adaptation - which He Himself desigend - take their course during His creation of the world as well.

God is supernatural, he created the rules i am sure he could break them. Also when he sent Jesus to save us, Jesus was born from a virgin is that not in itself a violation of the rules?

 

[stranger]

Come let us reason together:

1. man is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. therefore man is created in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Indeed 'the "Son" has existed for all eternity' so that when God said 'let us make man in our image and likeness' . . . I take it that the 'us' includes 'the Son of God', as well as the Father and the Spirit.

The problem there is that when man was created, Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God, because Jesus Christ had not been born yet. The Son was pure spirit, the Second Person of the Trinity, but that Divine Nature had not yet been joined to the human nature of the man Jesus when man was created. I don't think that is too hard to understand.

St Francis,

What I am saying is this: 'image and likeness of God' is the 'image and likeness of the Son of God'. No better proof is found in scripture than the event of the incarnation. The gospel of John says: all things (including the creation of Adam in the image and likeness of God) were made through him and without Him was anything made that was made.' I can legitimately appeal to both or either the humanity or divinity of Jesus Christ, afterall 'He is the image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creation,' because Christians believe Jesus Christ is One Person with two natures, not two persons with two natures.

When the Word became flesh the image and likeness of God was finally completely manifested and revealed in the personn of Christ. In Genesis you have only a partial revelation that man was created in the image and likeness of God. with Jesus Christ we have the complete full revelation. The image and likeness of God is best seen in Jesus Christ who lives, not in Adam who 'died'.

 

[francisdesales]

I am just saying. IMHO its thinking like that that allows room for evolution thinking, a clear heresy. Again In my honest opinion.

What parts of "evolution" are heresy? We see examples of micro-evolution right before our eyes. I think if we admit that God is behind evolution, whatever that means, how is this "heresy"? If we admit that God created Adam and Eve as a culmination of evolutionary processes, how is that heresy? Please explain where the Bible or the Church tells us infallibly that Genesis one and two must be taken literally?

Thanks

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgment of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.


Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

Perhaps all true. But you have not answered my question. What parts of what I have described is heresy? I believe God created an orderly universe, created man in His image and likeness, and created one set of male and female. I believe what the Church teaches, but the Church gives me latitude to understand Genesis 1 and 2 as "pre-history" that was not meant to be taken literally in regards to science. It certainly is within the realm of possibility that the Sacred Author did not INTEND to teach science with Genesis 1 and 2, but rather, theological TRUTHS.

Regards

Thanks

 

[John]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation, the problem with your interpretation is that it is not scriptural. You put your faith in man and bad "science" and that's why i said it was a heresy.

 

[St Francis]

In a previous post, I said:

"If you are asking me if God has the ability to create a world in 6 days that appears to be billions of years old, I would be forced to answer that He does have that capability. But the question is not what He is able to do, the question is: What really happened."

So, I am not saying that God is incapabale of such a thing, I'm just saying that I don't believe it actually happened that way.

God seems to mostly work within the rules. For example, when He sent Jesus to save us, Jesus didn't just appear out of thin air in a flash of light. He was born, went through childhood and adolescence, probaly broke a few bones and skinned a few knees, just like any other person. So there is no reason to think that God did not let the laws of growth & adaptation - which He Himself desigend - take their course during His creation of the world as well.

God is supernatural, he created the rules i am sure he could break them. Also when he sent Jesus to save us, Jesus was born from a virgin is that not in itself a violation of the rules?

We seem to be talking past each other. I agree that God is supernatural, that he created the rules, and i am sure he could break them too. Again, I just don't believe in a literal 6-day creation

And yes, Jesus being born from a virgin is a sort a violation of the rules, but it was the type that was not starkly visible to everyone around. It required faith to believe in on the part of others around her.

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation, the problem with your interpretation is that it is not scriptural. You put your faith in man and bad "science" and that's why i said it was a heresy.

Two questions.

First of all. Does Genesis one REQUIRE a literal interpretation? What words tell us that the Sacred Writer INTENDED to detail a literal six day creation, rather than a "Parable"?

Second of all. Why do you read John 6:51 as metaphorical? You can take it for what it says, or make up your own interpretation...

And I continue to wait for your answer on my challenge to you. What heresy am I teaching? Or was this just an off-the-cuff accusation without any substantiation?

Regards

 

[John]

First of all. Does Genesis one REQUIRE a literal interpretation? What words tell us that the Sacred Writer INTENDED to detail a literal six day creation, rather than a "Parable"?

Because without it people are free to mucky it up i.e. evolution and old earth creation. I i stood in front of you and said, "i want these papers delivered tomorrow", would you stand there and think to your self " hmm, he said tomorrow but i he must have meant in hundreds of millions of years"

Second of all. Why do you read John 6:51 as metaphorical? You can take it for what it says, or make up your own interpretation...

Its called using your head, sure god could can came down as a loaf of bread with legs but this message is clearly symbolic. there is no reason why Genesis cannot be literal, there is nothing obscene as walking,talking wonder bread in Genesis.

And I continue to wait for your answer on my challenge to you. What heresy am I teaching? Or was this just an off-the-cuff accusation without any substantiation?

The heresy is that you advocate old earth creationism and evolution, its not scriptural and unsupported when you dig into the books on the topic as i have. I suggest taking a deep dive into the controversy before blindly accepting what man has placed on your plate. IMHO.

 

[St Francis]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation.....

You mean like when Jesus says "This is my body" at the last supper? There's a flip-flop situation, where we take Jesus' words at face value, and protestants do not. So we can both agree, at least in principal, that some scriptures are to be taken literally, and some are not.

Now, who decides when which is which? That brings us to a whole other subject of Sola Scriptura, and who has the authority to intepret sciptures, etc. etc.

 

[John]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation.....

You mean like when Jesus says "This is my body" at the last supper? There's a flip-flop situation, where we take Jesus' words at face value, and protestants do not. So we can both agree, at least in principal, that some scriptures are to be taken literally, and some are not.

Now, who decides when which is which? That brings us to a whole other subject of Sola Scriptura, and who has the authority to intepret sciptures, etc. etc.

We have to decide based on the logical. Did the disciples go cannibalistic at the last supper and eat Jesus? No then it must be metaphorical or figurative. Did God make every thing like he said he did or was it over millions of years, is it illogical for me to trust that he could and did make everything in 6 days? no, but Kentucky fried Jesus would be very illogical. (sorry if that last bit offended anyone, but i found it worked)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation.....

You mean like when Jesus says "This is my body" at the last supper? There's a flip-flop situation, where we take Jesus' words at face value, and protestants do not. So we can both agree, at least in principal, that some scriptures are to be taken literally, and some are not.

Now, who decides when which is which? That brings us to a whole other subject of Sola Scriptura, and who has the authority to intepret sciptures, etc. etc.

We have to decide based on the logical. Did the disciples go cannibalistic at the last supper and eat Jesus? No then it must be metaphorical or figurative. Did God make every thing like he said he did or was it over millions of years, is it illogical for me to trust that he could and did make everything in 6 days? no, but Kentucky fried Jesus would be very illogical. (sorry if that last bit offended anyone, but i found it worked)

But the evidence for the earth not being made 6,000 years ago and in 6 days is stronger than any evidence that they did not literally eat Christ.

What evidence do you have that they did not actually eat of his flesh?

 

[John]

It is based on logic, if they ate Jesus he would have...died, then came back to life just to die on the cross, i am pretty sure that part would not be omitted from the Bible.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It is based on logic, if they ate Jesus he would have...died, then came back to life just to die on the cross, i am pretty sure that part would not be omitted from the Bible.

No, people can lose parts of their body without dying.