Are you sure? It seems to me that if those churches were truly "agnostic" on this matter that there would be more creationists in those churches. Yet there are almost none, and the media of those churches constantly attack and ridicule young earth creationism. Why would church media be so partisan if the churches are "agnostic" in the matter of evolution and Genesis 1-11?
Since you were so kind as to answer my question, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you another one.
Why are the ancient apostolic churches "agnostic" on the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 when they are for the literal truth of such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, the "real presence," the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and even such things as Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917? What is there about the first eleven chapters of Genesis (be honest now) that makes it different from all these other things?
As I am asking for honesty from you, I will be honest myself. I believe the reason for treating Genesis 1-11 differently from the rest of the bible is nothing other than sociological prejudice against the people with whom those chapters are associated--ie, rural American "rednecks." Is there any other reason why Genesis 1-11 should be a parable while everything in the new testament (and in post-NT chrstian history such as the Portuguese sun dance) is literally true?
Why would church media be so partisan if the churches are “agnostic” in the matter of evolution and Genesis 1-11?
>>Ignorance.
Why are the ancient apostolic churches “agnostic” on the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 when they are for the literal truth of such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, the “real presence,” the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and even such things as Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917? What is there about the first eleven chapters of Genesis (be honest now) that makes it different from all these other things?
>>Because the early Jews didn’t interpret the beginning of Genesis literally.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html
Genesis is a book of theology, not a book of science.
But someone could not be termed a heretic under canonical penalty for teaching a young Earth belief.
For crying out loud, we have people like Robert Sungenis running around claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth, yet no one has bothered to canonically censure him.
The Fatima miracle is approved by the Church as a matter of pious belief, but no one is required to believe in it.
For that matter, why is Genesis 1-11 considered a parable or metaphor or not to be taken literally, when the rest of Genesis is considered a historical text and taken literally?
Either the whole book should be taken literally or not. No switching interpretive styles midstream.
The social divide between cosmopolitan Catholic Yankees and rural Evangelical Southerners has no impact on Rome's view of evolution. Prior to the aberration of Vatican II, most Catholics rejected the belief in macro-evolution. My traditional parish uses American catechisms from the 40's for Confirmation class that teach Creation as fact and are very negative toward macro-evolution.
Is there any other reason why Genesis 1-11 should be a parable while everything in the new testament (and in post-NT chrstian history such as the Portuguese sun dance) is literally true?
Many Catholics have rejected Our Lady of Fatima to varying degrees, including every single pope since that time. Mary said that a pope must consecrate "Russia" in union with all the bishops of world to prevent or halt the "destruction of many nations" by the "errors of Russia," among other things. There have been eight attempts by various popes to perform said consecration (including two attempts by JP2), but each attempt left out a critical portion of the request such as the invocation of "Russia" by name. Marxism, at least in its cultural formulation, continues to destroy many nations including our own.