I can sympathize with growing weary with this argument, but I don't see any hypocrisy.
So you're saying that because the virgin birth is mentioned in the Nicene Creed and young earth creationism isn't that young earth creationism therefore cannot be a dogma of the Catholic Church?
I'm not saying that. I haven't said that young earth creationism cannot be dogma, just that it is not.
You're saying that every single required dogma is in the Creed and if it's not then it's optional and there is "room for disagreement?" Does that mean there is room for disagreement on papal infallibility or the immaculate conception because they're not in the Creed any more than young earth creationism?
I never mentioned the Creed. I've never said how exactly something becomes dogma. I don't even know, myself. I'm pinging Cronos to this, because he is a knowledgeable Catholic and he could explain how you can know whether something is dogma or not. All I said was that one thing is dogma, while another is not.
Even more importantly (and the crux of the matter), you're saying that G-d can write a book and it contain errors and untruths? Just what kind of "gxd" is this you worship?
We do not claim that the Bible has any errors. We're just arguing over interpretation of it.
Because the reason young earth creationism is rejected is simply because "we now know this could not have happened" (because it violates how the world actually works). And yet the virgin birth and the resurrection violate those scientific laws every bit as much.
Young earth creationism has never been rejected. Believing in young earth creationism is not contrary to the Catholic Church.
And yet the virgin birth and the resurrection violate those scientific laws every bit as much. Fr. Raymond Brown may have been a liberal but at least he was consistent. One can't say the same thing about people who dismiss young earth creationism specifically because scientists don't believe it while believing other things which those same scientists also reject.
Science can be used as a general guide, except when it is superseded by infallible dogmas. Nothing inconsistent about that rule. Do you reject all science, because it apparently contradicts young earth creationism? If not, then you are doing the same thing.
The only reason one has "always been a dogma" while the other "has not" is that within the past two centuries people suddenly stopped believing the latter because science tells us it is "impossible." Two hundred years ago--and certainly in the days of Bellarmine--the claim could have been made that YEC "has always been an infallible dogma." If one formerly infallible dogma can be changed because uniformitarian scientists don't like it, on what grounds do you persist in holding onto other "impossible" events which may be rejected in the future just as other "impossible" dogmas have been rejected in the past?
I'd love to see the proof that YEC was once an infallible dogma, not just that it was believed by most, if not all, Christians.
How many times must I answer this question?
You haven't answered very directly.
I have responded each time that Catholic apologeticists make a punching bag of Fundamentalist Protestant creationism while holding up as "heroic examples of simple childlike faith" exotic illiterate peasants who do things like nail themselves to crosses and wrap snakes around statues. Now, do you want to ask me again? It's obvious that creationism is "red-lined" in the Catholic Church because it is associated with "trailer trash."
That looks like a "yes." Don't you think it is absurd to believe that a religious organization with several hundred million members headquartered in Rome would pick and choose its beliefs based on whether or not it contradicts with those of rural Americans?
Catholic apologeticists make a punching bag of Fundamentalist Protestants because they aim exclusively for intellectuals and don't intend to ever convert any Fundamentalist Protestants. Thank you again for admitting this.
Thank you again for putting words in my mouth. I've never admitted to such. All I said was that the Catholic apologists you were referring to thought denouncing Biblical literalism was an effective tactic. It doesn't mean whatever else you think it means. It doesn't mean there can't be other Catholic apologists trying to convert Fundamentalist Protestants.
Of course not. That example is an excellent illustration of exactly what I am saying and you are denying. Of course you couldn't respond.
No, I though you were being sarcastic and not making a serious argument, because you put a sarc sign at the end. I didn't feel the need to respond to something that looked sarcastic. I'd love to refer back to that post, but it was deleted, probably because of mentioning a certain guy's name. If I remember correctly, you said Catholics should change their beliefs, just to be different from that certain guy, and then you put a sarc sign at the end. If that's what you actually posted, then it's actually a good illustration of how Catholics don't change their beliefs just to be different from certain people. In any case, I didn't feel the need to respond to something that didn't look like a serious argument.
I am so sick and tired of having my personal experience with the Catholic Church attributed to "one bad parish."
Well, it's the first time I said that, I believe.
Was my "one bad parish" responsible for the content of Our Sunday Visitor, Liguorian, Catholic Digest, or the innumerable books churned out by well-respected Catholic theologians defending evolution and the documentary hypothesis? That must have one busy parish!
Every pope since at least Pius XII has accepted evolution. Were they all members of my parish?
The current pope doesn't believe in the traditional doctrine of original sin. Was he a member of my parish?
I was referring to the anti-redneck attitude, not its belief in evolution, original sin, or other theological issues.
Then why do you think Catholic apologeticists constantly attack it? Because they have a profound respect for those of us who believe in it???
What Catholic apologist do has nothing to do with whether or not I think young earth creationists are mental midgets and your falsely attributing that attitude to me.
Science can tell us only about the world before it. It has no access to a world when the current laws of nature either did not exist in their present form or were in the process of coming into existence. And at any rate, Divine revelation always supersedes the claims of science.
We do not claim that the Bible has any errors. We're just arguing over interpretation of it.
The notion that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are some sort of mythological "poem" different from the rest of the Torah rests on liberal Biblical criticism, which in turn rests on uniformitarian assumptions.
I'd love to see the proof that YEC was once an infallible dogma, not just that it was believed by most, if not all, Christians.
Perhaps the virgin birth or resurrection will one day join the list of those things once believed by most chr*stians that will be rejected one day on the authority of science.
Don't you think it is absurd to believe that a religious organization with several hundred million members headquartered in Rome would pick and choose its beliefs based on whether or not it contradicts with those of rural Americans?
I don't think it's absurd that the American members of that organization go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of Fundamentalist Protestants, even as they accept the primitive beliefs of folk Catholicism.
I was referring to the anti-redneck attitude, not its belief in evolution, original sin, or other theological issues.
There's precious little difference between one and the other--especially when American Catholic apologists often thump the "don't confuse us with those awful people" mantra.