Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Anti-Empirical Left
nationalreview.com ^ | 3/6/2014 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 03/06/2014 10:24:04 AM PST by rktman

President Obama entered office promising to restore the sanctity of science. Instead, a fresh war against science, statistics, and reason is being waged on behalf of politically correct politics.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, the president attempted to convert national outrage into new gun-control legislation. Specifically, he focused on curtailing semi-automatic “assault” rifles. But there is no statistical evidence that such guns — semi-automatic rifles that have mostly cosmetic changes to appear similar to banned military-style fully automatic assault weapons — lead to increased gun-related crimes.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: spirited irish
Thank you for sharing your views, dear spirited irish!

As for me, I am both YEC and OEC.

61 posted on 03/12/2014 10:09:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Please, do not ping me to anything you post again. Thank you


62 posted on 03/12/2014 11:26:25 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; xzins; rktman; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; Heartlander; ...
Many people today believe that modern science has proven the earth to be billions of years old, and that every living thing descended from a single cell which itself is the result of chance combination of chemicals.

Those two "beliefs" are in no way related to each other, dear sister in Christ.

What science has shown is that the age of the earth is around 4.7 billion years; the age of the universe around 14 billion years. I do not find this at all alarming. The disparity between the Bible's statement, interpreted literally, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, is completely reconciled to these scientific observations, it seems to me, if one grasps the concept of relativistic time, so beautifully illustrated by Alamo-Girl and TXnMA.

Regarding Hugh Ross' statement RE: God's Word (Logos) being "both the energizing force behind the Big Bang and the director of [the] evolutionary process" — I agree with it. But it's important to understand that Ross is NOT referencing anything like Darwinian evolution here.

We know that the ways of our Lord "far surpasseth human understanding." Yet we also know that the Word of God is Truth: God does not ever lie to us.

I believe God gave us, not only the Revelation of Himself in the Holy Scriptures, but three other revelations of Himself as well: The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Logos, Son of God; the Book of Creation (i.e., the natural world); and the Holy Spirit Who abides with us. Romans 1:20 underscores the third revelation: God wants us to glorify Him by seeing His glory in the things He has made. So I do not scorn or fear the natural sciences. It is only the abuse of science that I deplore, with the uttermost contempt.

Which brings us to Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not deal with the origin of life. But I note that most Darwinists attribute the origin of life to matter, which somehow willy-nilly bootstraps itself up to life and consciousness for no reason at all. It "just happened." And then "evolution" got started.

Of course, this idea is patently absurd. For these Darwinist ninnies can't even tell you what "matter" IS, let alone how it makes itself "alive" and, eventually, conscious.

Recently, theoretical physicists' researches are turning up some extraordinarily arresting insights into the nature of "matter." Increasingly, it is being hypothesized as a form of Light.

Thus the Word of God in the Beginning — "Let there be Light," or "Let Light Be" — acquires a significance more profound than we humans have ever imagined heretofore. This was the Word of Creation....

As far as earlier men being "primitive" compared with ourselves now living, an important distinction needs to be made. I believe that the nature of man is a created nature that does not change. That is, human nature, and as a corollary, the human condition does not change over all of time. What does change is human knowledge of the world. It is on that basis alone that we can say that earlier men are "primitive" as compared to ourselves. But again, in no other way.

Important to note: The progress of science over the course of human history has been built on the successive insights of men more "primitive" than we....

Of course, if human nature, as God-created and -endowed, is the Truth of the matter — and I do not doubt that it is — then Darwinian evolution is a fairy story which somehow, through malfeasance, constitutes a revolt against the Creator God. Notwithstanding, it is probably the most powerful myth of our time.

It is, simply put, an abuse of science. But that doesn't mean that the universe can't somehow be an evolutionary process.

If God wanted to unfold His Creation thattaway, what's our beef?

Anyhoot, my credo, FWIW....

Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your spirited essay/post! May God's Love and Grace and Peace and Light be with you always!

63 posted on 03/13/2014 3:01:57 PM PDT by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; xzins; rktman; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; Heartlander
"Those two "beliefs" are in no way related to each other, dear sister in Christ." bb, Dear Sister, you are absolutely correct: the process by which the universe reached its present state ("cosmology" ) and the Darwinian theory of the EVOLUTION of life are totally disconnected and disparate subjects.

To preclude the conflation of them (either through ignorance -- or in deliberate attempt to confuse the issues for dogmatic purposes -- I propose (and have long been using) the following:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The universe DEVELOPED from its inception state into its current state (IMHO, under the plan, design and guidance of our Creator).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Darwin, et al, life "EVOLVED" (under the "random" driving force of mutation[s]) -- purely without guidance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as I have been able to determine, LIFE also DEVELOPED from its inception state into its current state (IMHO, under the plan, design and guidance of our Creator).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So... for clarity, (and to avoid the opprobrium attached to it) I propose that we "ONLY" use the term, "EVOLUTION" and its derivitaves -- when specifically discussing "BIOLOGICAL DARWINISM" and its derivatives.

And, that we use the term, "DEVELOPMENT" and its derivatives when discussing "how things -- both living and cosmological -- came to be as they now are" .

64 posted on 03/13/2014 6:19:26 PM PDT by TXnMA (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! REPEAT San Jacinto!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
I seems silly to insist that God The Creator must do things instantaneously, accomplishing in momnets what science indicates takes billions of years. Since The Creator is not bound by time why would God be in any hurry at all.

The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, coupled with In the beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and was God ... and without Him was nothing made ... well coupling those two need not have a temporal limits added which is not stated by God about His methodology. With ALL of time, God could allow a random system to run until The Word to be made flesh and dwell among us became possible in the parameters of the random processes. It would still be God's doing, not randomness manifesting.

65 posted on 03/13/2014 6:28:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

The same notion is found in the initial conditions of Creation of the Universe of our existence. Before inlation of space and time, below planck length space and time the command ‘Light Be’ cannot happen, so God allows His created dimensions to manifest sufficient that electromagnetic energy/radiation can be. The God uses His creation to bring all the rst into being following set physical laws for the interactions of waves, etc. regardless of how long it all takes.


66 posted on 03/13/2014 6:32:12 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"I seems silly to insist that God The Creator must do things instantaneously, accomplishing in momnets what science indicates takes billions of years. Since The Creator is not bound by time why would God be in any hurry at all."

Here -- and in your #66 -- you're "preaching to the choir"...

You won't hear or read me saying that anything other than the inception of ex nihilo creation (from nothing -- to a singularity of energy, time, space, matter) occurred "instantly".

And, God, may not be "timeless", per se: He, Himself said that He spent six days in His own time to create and form ("develop" ) "all that is". And, then, He took a day of (His own) time off to rest. ...or so He said in Genesis..

67 posted on 03/13/2014 7:07:23 PM PDT by TXnMA (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! REPEAT San Jacinto!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Indeed, our understanding of Scripture concerning prophecy - past and future references - is quite different. So we shall have to agree to disagree even though we can recognize each other as brother/sister in Christ. Some day all will be revealed.

At the pace things are moving in this world it won't be long to know which prophecies are unfolding.

I do not share your understanding of Satan, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, different ages, etc. but I would like to address your question here:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil:

It is most difficult to respond to a blanket statement of disagreeing with me, and giving no indication as to what the Words of God are instructing. I just can't ignore what is Written, most especially when Christ Himself declared as Written in Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

Granted He did not declare any or all the peoples to the end of this world would hear and see with understanding what this warning encompasses. But the answers must need be included given this declaration.

It does not make sense that God would claim ownership of something/someone that did not already exist?

Time, including the arrow of time (past>present>future), does not apply to God. Time is part of the Creation and not a property of, or restriction on, God the Creator of it. God alone sees all that there is all at once, every where and every when. Everything was made by Him for for Him, i.e. all things are factually His to do with as He pleases:

I do not understand how Peter's instruction on how God keeps time is a restriction on God the Creator. Especially when up until the flood those people lived nearly one day with the Lord. Genesis 6, God changed the amount of time He would allow a flesh body to live because of the fallen angels or as they are called sons of God.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. – Revelation 4:11 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. - Psalms 24:1 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: - Col 1:16 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. – Ezekiel 18:4 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, - Romans 9:21-23 Jesus being called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” is an example of the arrow of time not applying to God: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Revelation 13:8 So also is the Book of Life: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. – Revelation 17:8 And again: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: - Ephesians 1:4 God's Name is I AM.

This word 'foundation' is a time signature. The word foundation used in the Scriptures cited as well as other places is katabole a noun, and the verb kataballo.

http://christianovercomers.com/The_Katabole.pdf

I just did an internet search for the word katabole and the above is but one link that gives discussion upon this particular Greek word(s). Other than that I have no association with this particular link. However, I do use the Strong's so I can look for myself the original word used to find the meaning. Some words from the original can have more than one meaning and depending upon which word the translators picked can flavor a verse away from the intent. The most egregious example is where somebody used the word Easter in place of Passover. My fingers are stiff and sore so I am attempting to type as little as I possibly can.

I would point out in the Revelation 13:8 IF the meaning 'casting down / overthrow' are used instead of the word 'foundation' then the verse would read

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the casting down/overthrow of the world.

And this 'him' that the whole world (except the elect) will worship is the same entity that tempted Christ, and he will be calling himself Christ.

This casting down/overthrow translated 'foundation' point to Genesis 1:2.

68 posted on 03/14/2014 1:14:19 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; TXnMA; MHGinTN; spirited irish
Thank you oh so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your beautiful testimony, insights and encouragements!

I believe God gave us, not only the Revelation of Himself in the Holy Scriptures, but three other revelations of Himself as well: The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Logos, Son of God; the Book of Creation (i.e., the natural world); and the Holy Spirit Who abides with us. Romans 1:20 underscores the third revelation: God wants us to glorify Him by seeing His glory in the things He has made. So I do not scorn or fear the natural sciences. It is only the abuse of science that I deplore, with the uttermost contempt.

I very, very strongly agree.

We are to look and see what He has done:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

69 posted on 03/14/2014 9:08:22 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop
So... for clarity, (and to avoid the opprobrium attached to it) I propose that we "ONLY" use the term, "EVOLUTION" and its derivitaves -- when specifically discussing "BIOLOGICAL DARWINISM" and its derivatives.

And, that we use the term, "DEVELOPMENT" and its derivatives when discussing "how things -- both living and cosmological -- came to be as they now are" .

That's fine by me - I'm for clarity.

70 posted on 03/14/2014 9:10:49 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop
The default position of all evolutionary cosmogonies, past and present, is materialism. Dig into any evolutionary cosmogony, from the very ancient Sumerian Enuma Elish to Hinduism's Brahman (Void) to Darwin's materialist system, Karl Marx's Dialectical Materialism, Teilhard's Omega, Joseph Smith's evolutionary cosmogony, and Hugh Ross's God-ignited Big Bang, there at bottom you'll find materialism.

Now either God spoke and revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ or He didn't. If He did then we know that He spoke creation into existence in six days. All of the early Church Fathers who wrote on Genesis expounded the literal six day creation. For instance, St. Cyril of Alexandria argued that higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to wrest and distort Genesis so as to conform it to Big Bang and other secular scientific assumptions is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

It matters not that Hugh Ross arrogantly appropriates God as the igniter of his Big Bang system or not because the consequences remain the same. By consequences, I mean application of Big Bang and old earth assumptions to the Bible results in an upside-down exegesis consisting of an abundance of inconsistencies that imperil the salvation of believers.

Hugh Ross's inverted creation account is in the claim of a six day creation that occurred at the end of billions of years of evolutionary process. Logically, this means that billions of creatures lived and died long before man arrived on the scene, making the Word (John 1:1), our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the cause of death and suffering rather than the fall of Adam. By making the fossil record the measure of a sequence of long ages, God becomes the cause of death and suffering because the history of life appears to be a record of ineptitude, extinctions and constant brutality for billions of years. In the words of the atheist astronomer and evolution promoter Carl Sagan (1934-1996), if God,

"....is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition." (Refuting Compromise, Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., p. 220)

The Big Bang, old earth view also leads to a philosophy of moral relativism because if men were once something else, a genderless blob of matter and then later on lizards and even later still some kind of ape-like creature, then not only are we going to become something else–maybe divine supermen, god-men, super robots or cosmic beings—but nothing can be said about transgender, ‘gay,’ and lesbianism since all life forms ascended from a genderless blob of matter generated by the inexplicable explosion of a Cosmic Egg which may or may not involve a stumbling God shaped and molded by theologians who require Him to ignite the Big Bang.

With regard to soul/spirit, if life arose from chemicals/matter and then billions of years later man evolved from lower life-forms, then his rational nature, his soul, differs not qualitatively but only quantitatively from the beasts. Like beasts, man is not a person but a creature of the earth. Like them he has no spirit—free will, higher mental faculties, and conscience. He is a fleshy androgynous robot or hominid whose brain is organized by the genome and the genome shaped by natural selection.

Dr. Sarfati argues that denial of the literal and historic meaning of Genesis (young earth view) is foundationally the result of 'imposing outside ideas upon the Bible.' Thus, it has 'baneful consequences which don't just stop with Genesis,' but adversely affect many areas. The atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically agrees:

"The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus...into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity." ("Atheism vs. Christianity," 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

Westernized evolutionary cosmogonies emerged out of the Renaissance when certain Christian theologians, scientists and scholars rediscovered occult science in the form of Hermeticism and esoteric Cabbala. Then like Pico della Mirandola they claimed the only way to understand and interpret Scripture was through the lens of occult science. When much later Darwin published his theory, highly placed occult-elite Westerners jumped on it and promoted it to the public as science, not because they accepted it, they did not, dialectical theorists for example contemptuously labeled Darwin's theory "vulgar." Darwin's vulgar theory was promoted because occultists and like-minded people required a vehicle for the negation and destruction of the six day account of creation.

Westernized evolutionary cosmogonies posit an inverted exegesis causing men who embrace them to think upside-down. Frank Baumer agrees. He observes that evolution has,

"....persuaded people to think of everything in nature as the fruit of a gradual growth rather than an original creation." The sweeping acceptance of evolutionary thinking means that it is "now difficult if not impossible for an educated man to conceive of a primitive revelation such as traditional Christianity taught, or even of an original natural religion from which men had declined." This difficulty arises because "in an evolving world, perfection obviously lay, not in the past, but in the future." (Religion and Rise of Skepticism, p. 147)

71 posted on 03/14/2014 9:18:05 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Justin Martyr

“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Theophilus of Antioch

“On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

“All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books” (ibid., 3:28–29).

Irenaeus

“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

“And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’” (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

“And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world” (ibid., 6:60).

“For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days” (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian

“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Victorinus

“God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).

Lactantius

“Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’” (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

Basil The Great

“‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself” (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).

Augustine

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).

“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).

“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).

“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

“We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it” (ibid., 11:7).

“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).


72 posted on 03/14/2014 9:24:47 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Justin Martyr

“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Theophilus of Antioch

“On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

“All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books” (ibid., 3:28–29).

Irenaeus

“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

“And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’” (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

“And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world” (ibid., 6:60).

“For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days” (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian

“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Victorinus

“God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).

Lactantius

“Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’” (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

Basil The Great

“‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself” (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).

Augustine

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).

“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).

“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).

“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

“We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it” (ibid., 11:7).

“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).


73 posted on 03/14/2014 9:25:00 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts; betty boop; TXnMA; MHGinTN; metmom; spirited irish
Thank you so much for sharing your views, dear Just mythoughts!

I would point out in the Revelation 13:8 IF the meaning 'casting down / overthrow' are used instead of the word 'foundation' then the verse would read

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the casting down/overthrow of the world.

And this 'him' that the whole world (except the elect) will worship is the same entity that tempted Christ, and he will be calling himself Christ.

This casting down/overthrow translated 'foundation' point to Genesis 1:2.

Upon reading the above, I gathered that your interpretation of Revelation 13:8 (and its relation to Genesis) was quite unique and so followed up to read the Young's Literal Translation of the verse which agrees with the King James:

And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;

However, I also noted that a number of new translations read the phrase "from the foundation of the world" to apply to the word "written" rather than the Lamb in that verse, e.g. English Standard Version:

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

But that is neither here nor there, since I Peter 1:20 makes the same point:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

I see no translation of the verse that agrees with yours.

So that made me wonder if you responded years ago to the survey of how Freepers understand How it will all end - and sure enough, your views there were also unique then, as compared to the other respondents. You said in 2006:

Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples ask unto Him privately, saying "Tell us, when shall these thing be and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" v4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you. v5 For many shall come in My name saying, 'I am Christ:' and shall deceived many. The rest of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all lists the "sign" of the end of this "AGE". ---- Paul says I Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples) and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come. So I am guessing the question "How it all Ends" is directed to the end of this flesh age. According to Paul we already have the script told to us by the prophets starting in Genesis, as Moses was surely a prophet. Christ said Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. So according to Christ, the tribulation foretold by Daniel and others assigned a 7 year time frame has been shortened.

From your responses then and now, I conclude your views of Genesis and Revelation (and points in between) are "age" oriented.

On that view of course we must agree to disagree.

I have several unique views as well and am not discouraged by their uniqueness because, after all, when Christ walked in the flesh most all the Jews - including the Apostles were expecting a conquering Lion, not a suffering Lamb. Indeed, they probably thought it had to be an either/or. But the rules of logic are part of the Creation and do not apply to the Creator of them.

Man is not the measure of God.

And, as you suggest, we will find out the truth of the matter soon enough. Indeed, I suspect we are in the beginning of events prophesied in Revelation.

Nevertheless, those of us who keep His word to the best of our understanding have nothing to fear:

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. - Revelation 3:20

Marantha, Jesus!!!

74 posted on 03/14/2014 10:05:21 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOConnell

From the site you quoted at length:

“Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the...”

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has been compromised by evolutionary thinking since Vatican II. The infamous heretic, Teilhard de Chardin was allowed to desecrate the Catholic Church with his quasi-Hindu pantheist evolutionary system.

Rather than the obviously compromised, fence-straddling site you authoritatively quoted, please visit the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Below are some passages from a Kolbe Center essay entitled, “Christ the Exemplar Cause of Creation, Eliminates the Possibility of Evolution,”

“Creation is, as it were, a book. Every creature is a sentence or a word in this book. The Author and Publisher is the Triune God. It is the task of human and angelic intelligence to read God’s thoughts from this book and co-operate with Him. The theme, the dominant idea that runs through each sentence—even each word—is the Word made Flesh, the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, because this Word says everything. This is why the Archangel says to Blessed Mary at the Incarnation, “No word will be impossible for God.” Evolution is not a word. It cannot be found in this book or in its theme. It is a fable (cf. 2Tim 4:4), a “strange doctrine” of which St. Paul warned us against so long ago.

Chardin made the bold claim that evolution “is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are to be thinkable and true.” This is patently false since no evolution is possible in Christ. Rather, his description of evolution’s supreme place fits the Christ, the Word, Truth Incarnate. It is to Him and His name that we must bow. It is “through Him and with Him and in Him” alone that all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must submit and satisfy if they are to be thinkable and true.

The true Book of Creation, Christ, predicted Chardin’s ideas in the lives of the Israelites making their way through in the desert of Sinai. King David relates in Psalm 105: “They made a calf in Horeb: and they adored the graven thing. … they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass…” (19-20). In making and worshipping the golden calf, these Israelites radically departed from the theme of creation’s book, the Word made flesh, by trying to write, as it were, “we are made in the image of beasts…because we came from the beasts; and we are, therefore, like the beasts. There is some equality between us.” We know the outcome. They proceeded to act like beasts, became beastly, and were destroyed.”

http://www.kolbecenter.org/christ-the-exemplar-cause-of-creation-eliminates-the-possibility-of-evolution/


75 posted on 03/14/2014 11:20:19 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

No defense against Teilhard de Chardin, participant in the Piltdown Man hoax.


76 posted on 03/14/2014 12:09:17 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOConnell

Since you say there is no defense for Teilhard, it ought to follow logically that there is no defense for the long ages, Darwinism, evolutionary biology, alchemy, Hermeticism, spiritualized matter, and cosmic evolution espoused by him as well. All of it is as the Kolbe Center rightly noted, “strange doctrine.”


77 posted on 03/14/2014 12:38:14 PM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; metmom; MHGinTN; Just mythoughts; xzins; rktman; P-Marlowe; ...
To preclude the conflation of them [i.e., big bang/inflationary universe cosmology and Darwinian evolution] (either through ignorance — or in deliberate attempt to confuse the issues for dogmatic purposes)....

I truly hope not to impute the second part of the above statement to dear spirited.

I also truly hope not to offend anyone by offering the following observations (but will probably manage to do so anyway, may God forgive me):

Hope springs eternal....

The YEC/sola scriptura position seems to want to dump the Revelation of the Book of Nature altogether; and by so doing, inadvertently shifts the Revelations of Christ Incarnate and the Holy Spirit with us into the shadows. The Holy Bible itself becomes the object of worship. The danger here, it seems to me, is that, without the complementing rounding-out and balancing of the other three Revelations, the sola scriptura position places one at risk of falling into a state of bibliolatry — perhaps the most subtle form of idolatry there is.

And we Christians all know that God detests idolatry of any shape or form....

Dear Brother, I am in total agreement with you that the following is the best policy:

...for clarity, (and to avoid the opprobrium attached to it) I propose that we "ONLY" use the term, "EVOLUTION" and its derivatives — when specifically discussing "BIOLOGICAL DARWINISM" and its derivatives.... And, that we use the term, "DEVELOPMENT" and its derivatives when discussing "how things — both living and cosmological — came to be as they now are."

I will try to make that my rule, going forward.

Thank you dear Brother in Christ, for your outstanding observations!

78 posted on 03/14/2014 12:51:01 PM PDT by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Yes, God does indeed detest idolatry. From the days of Noah up through to our own the common ground of idolatry has been worship of elements, particles, and energies. In "Against the Heathen," early Church Father Athanasius reveals that pride and haughtiness preceded pre-flood man's fall into idolatry and naturalism. A haughty spirit led them to make light of higher things, and deliberately disregarding what they knew to be true they began to seek in preference things in the lower or natural dimension. Thus they fell into worship of self, sexual pleasures and acquisition of status and things to the living God and higher things.

The truth as to evil said Athanasius,

"....is that it originates, and resides, in the perverted choice of the darkened soul" which, "materialized by forgetting God" and engrossed in lower things, "makes them into gods," and thereby "descends into a hopeless depth of delusion and superstition," whereby "they ceased to think that anything existed beyond what is seen, or that anything was good save things temporal and bodily; so turning away and forgetting that she was in the image of the good God, she no longer... sees God the Word after whose likeness she is made; but having departed from herself, imagines and feigns what is not (and then) advancing further in evil, they came to celebrate as gods the elements and the principles of which bodies are composed...." (Against the Heathen, New Advent)

Having descended into delusion and superstition they imagined they imagined that "all that exists" is a creative energy into which they could plug so as to spiritually evolve into gods upon the death of their bodies.

After the flood the Egyptians' self-created Sun-God Ra relates how he created himself, meaning spiritually evolved over vast ages from out of Nu — primordial matter:

"I came into being from primordial matter...I made all the forms under which I appeared by means of (or out of) the god-soul which I raised up out of Nu (i.e., the primeval abyss of water.) (The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p. 243)

The pre-flood people that God washed away in the flood were evolutionary naturalists. They believed in spiritual evolution over vast ages.

According to New Age historians, the important elements of Mystery Religion Atlantis were preserved on the plains of Shinar after the flood. It was Ham, worshipped by the Greeks as Chronus, who received these elements telepathically. He in turn instructed his sons and their sons.

What has been written by me on this thread is not meant to offend, even though it obviously has. It is not in me to stand aside mutely, saying nothing when another person is heading the wrong way.

The passages below from a Kolbe Center essay entitled, “Christ the Exemplar Cause of Creation, Eliminates the Possibility of Evolution,” are an eloquent statement of where I stand unreservedly and where, if at all in my power, where I pray others will stand as well even in the face of scorn, ridicule, and rejection:

“Creation is, as it were, a book. Every creature is a sentence or a word in this book. The Author and Publisher is the Triune God. It is the task of human and angelic intelligence to read God’s thoughts from this book and co-operate with Him. The theme, the dominant idea that runs through each sentence—even each word—is the Word made Flesh, the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, because this Word says everything. This is why the Archangel says to Blessed Mary at the Incarnation, “No word will be impossible for God.” Evolution is not a word. It cannot be found in this book or in its theme. It is a fable (cf. 2Tim 4:4), a “strange doctrine” of which St. Paul warned us against so long ago.

Chardin made the bold claim that evolution “is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are to be thinkable and true.” This is patently false since no evolution is possible in Christ. Rather, his description of evolution’s supreme place fits the Christ, the Word, Truth Incarnate. It is to Him and His name that we must bow. It is “through Him and with Him and in Him” alone that all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must submit and satisfy if they are to be thinkable and true.

The true Book of Creation, Christ, predicted Chardin’s ideas in the lives of the Israelites making their way through in the desert of Sinai. King David relates in Psalm 105: “They made a calf in Horeb: and they adored the graven thing. … they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass…” (19-20). In making and worshipping the golden calf, these Israelites radically departed from the theme of creation’s book, the Word made flesh, by trying to write, as it were, “we are made in the image of beasts…because we came from the beasts; and we are, therefore, like the beasts. There is some equality between us.” We know the outcome. They proceeded to act like beasts, became beastly, and were destroyed.”

http://www.kolbecenter.org/christ-the-exemplar-cause-of-creation-eliminates-the-possibility-of-evolution/

79 posted on 03/14/2014 2:14:29 PM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; metmom; MHGinTN; xzins; Heartlander; Just mythoughts
Carl Sagan's question:

"...if God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining?

And how he answers it:

"No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition."

My reflection on these statements:

(1) God IS omnipotent and omniscient. What is the basis of Sagan's claim that God didn't "start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants?" God knows the end from the beginning, and everything in between. God's being is timeless, eternal. He lives in the Eternal NOW; man lives in serial, linear, irreversible time. God already knows how everything turns out. But man doesn't.

Why does Sagan think that God is endlessly "tinkering" with His creation? And where does Sagan find God "complaining" about anything?

Actually, he might have heard about that "tinkering" business from Sir Isaac Newton, a monotheist, who did tend to think God made a mechanistic universe. That was all the rage in his day (see: Laplace's Mécanique Céleste). That being the case, God would have to step in from time to time to set matters aright; because mechanisms tend to accumulate errors over time. The point is, Newton was a totally faithful believer in the Creator God. Sagan seems to have missed that part.

The kind of "creation" that Sagan expects God should have made would be a thoroughly, perfectly determined "machine" from the get-go, one in which nothing genuinely novel, nothing new could ever come into existence. It would make man's free will, reason, and creativity perfectly irrelevant, superfluous. In which case Sagan himself, his science, and his own statements about God would be perfectly irrelevant and superfluous.

(2) God is not, as Sagan claims, a "sloppy manufacturer." Indeed, He is not a manufacturer at all; for all a manufacturer can build is machines. God did not build "machines." Rather, He created souls capable of living in sonship with Him, their Father. Sagan's claim that God is good at neither design nor execution, and that He'd be "out of business if there was any competition" suggests to me three things: (a) in the first place, Sagan is making himself "the measure" of God; yet (b) though he makes this claim, to make the claim itself is a backhanded acknowledgement that God exists; and finally (c) Sagan proposes himself as God's "competitor," and a far superior competitor at that.

At this point, "the cat's out of the bag," as they say.

Again, dear sister, you are conflating cosmology and Darwinian myth.

When it comes to God, theology, and religion, Sagan (like Richard Dawkins) is a complete ignoramus. Why do you take him seriously? He is a "know-nothing."

Also, you are imputing much nastiness to Hugh Ross — arrogance, malfeasance, the inversion/falsification of actual Reality. Why??? I feel sure he didn't ascribe to the "theory" that life/soul/spirit arose from chemicals/matter. That the "evolution" of man proceeded from the lowest and crudest of life forms? Why are you beating a dead horse???

Darwin's theory of Evolution is a non-starter. Yet you keep on (inadvertently) promoting it. Why???

You seem to agree with Dr. Sarfati that "denial of the literal and historical meaning of Genesis (young earth view)" is the result of "imposing outside ideas upon the Bible."

Turn that idea on its head, and you come closer to the Truth: there is nothing "truthful" in science that contradicts the Holy Scriptures.

Which is why I am 100% CERTAIN that Darwin's theory is some kind of satanic joke.

FWIW. Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for sharing your thoughts.

80 posted on 03/14/2014 2:33:20 PM PDT by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson