Posted on 01/12/2008 7:45:31 PM PST by trumandogz
“As for the Sabbath, in the New Testament we are told not to let anyone judge us in regard to keeping it. We are told that one man keeps one day holy, others keep all days alike. When Jesus rose from the dead, a LOT of stuff was fulfilled. I keep the Christian Sabbath by not forsaking the gathering together of the saints, as instructed in Hebrews.”
I’m a Jew. I prefer to call it the Eternal COvenant - not the “Old” as in deprecated Testament.
Why wouldn’t God have told us to eat pigs in the the first place? Why bother with all the kosher laws? Couldn’t He get it right the first time?
I responded with this link to Catholic.net, and an excerpt demonsrating the Catholic Church's position that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. And you counter that by quoting Jeffrey Dahmer? Wow.
Lurkers will no doubt be able to decide for themselves whether they want to accept your opinion about the Catholic church.
He's at least got that part right. He might as well finish the job and book a few big-$$$ at some ivy-league universities while he's at it.
Personally, I have no difficulty reconciling God's revelations in the Holy Scriptures with evolution theory. Catholic and Jewish thinkers alike (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit anthropologist and Gerald Schroeder, a physicist, respectively) have made interesting proposals along these lines. But I would have a problem with any strictly "science-based theology," which to me is oxymoronic.
Our book Timothy is very largely about the complementarity of faith and reason. Neither should be "reduced" to the other, for both are necessary; though in our view faith is definitely the "senior partner," so to speak. A science-based theology inevitably would reduce the former to the latter.
We have many proofs of the existence of God from the great scholastic philosophers; but God's existence does not depend on such proofs. (Which is a very good thing, for many thinkers regard them as unpersuasive.) Neither does God's existence depend on "proofs" from science, nor is it challenged by lack of scientific corroboration.
God's Creation predates science by billions of years (assuming LeMaitre's and Guth's big bang/inflationary universe model is correct). The Creation is lawful, orderly, "rational"; that is the only reason it can be an object for science in the first place. Further, the Creation evidently was designed to manifest in a temporal process (as we finite humans would see it) -- i.e., it "evolves" -- from its beginning in the divine creative act, to its end in divine judgment; i.e., from Alpha to Omega, one of the Holy Names of the Son of God. I don't need a "science-based theology" to grasp this point.
Actually if I needed one, I've already got one: I could say I believe in Darwin's evolution theory whole-hog, even macroevolution, with the proviso that the Logos of God (another of the Holy Names associated with the Son of God) is the Common Ancestor. But that would not be a "scientific statement." :^) LOL!!!
The important thing, the truly vital thing, is to live in openness to God, not to seek some sort of "intellectual closure" by accepting a science-based doctrine or theory about Him and His Creation. More than likely, we frail human beings would end up worshipping the doctrine, and not God Himself.
Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ! And thank you ever so much dear Kevmo for your kind mention of our little book!
The basic reality is simple enough and easy enough to grasp; an evolutionist has no logical basis for morality. If the pope doesn’t comprehend that, he’s in the wrong line of work.
The rind was sundered allowing the brilliant light of rational thought to permeate his mind and to cause the scales to fall away
Why is this shocking? Because it makes a good sentence in an opening paragraph?
“I’m a Jew. I prefer to call it the Eternal COvenant - not the “Old” as in deprecated Testament.
Why wouldn’t God have told us to eat pigs in the the first place? Why bother with all the kosher laws? Couldn’t He get it right the first time?”
I hear what you’re saying. My opinion as to why is, that, salvation was for the Jews until Jesus came. After he came, as prophesied in Isaiah 53 and many other places, salvation was extended to all mankind. Some changes were made in the laws that made the Jews differentiated from other ethnic groups, as they no longer needed to be separate.
bump
Young Earth Creationism?
And how do you tell the difference?
So Methuselah really was 969 when he died?
That is very true. As a Catholic I feel very comfortable in my belief in the fact of evolution. Even back in my Catholic grade school education in the 60's, the nuns taught us evolution.
On the other hand, it wasn't rediculous. The 6th extinction; it happened to him, it's happening to us
Not strictly that the next evolutionary phase will pass us by, but that extinction is a part of nature and our extinction is part of the process that will advance evolution.
If Evolution is true, it is shear hubris to assume that we are the pinnacle of the process, the last thing to ever come.
Don’t expect a response. He picks and chooses which ones he wants to be figurative and those he wants to take literally.
Most creationists do.
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.