Then why does it have a dogmatically defined perspective on the virgin birth, the resurrection, the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and transubstantiation, seeing as how each and every one of these things is a scientific impossibility and that the gospels that contain these stories are theological works, not science books?
How many times do I have to ask that question before you answer it?
I meant the secular media. That’s how I read your reference to the media.
You don't read very carefully. I asked specifically why, if the Catholic Church is "agnostic" in the matter of creation, all CHURCH media are slanted so heavily in favor of evolution and against creation? If the Church is "agnostic," its media should be "agnostic," but they are not. I refer to Liguorian, Catholic Digest, US Catholic, Our Sunday Visitor, and all the tracts and books that Catholics print and distribute that promote evolution. Is this the position of the media of an organization that is "agnostic" about evolution and creation?
You evidently also don't read your own posts very well. You posted an article by a former Calvinist convert to Orthodoxy who rejected young earth creationism. What is the reader supposed to judge from this but that the adoption of evolution is one of the things Orthodoxy requires of Calvinists before it accepts them?
You have been on FR for a little over three months. In all that time, so far as I know, you have done absolutely nothing but post a series of provocative, Protestant-bashing articles (including one by an atheist using the "Dead Sea Scrolls" to attack Biblical inerrancy). That seems to be your one and only purpose here. It does not present a positive picture of you.
One final thing: about a year ago there was a Catholic who signed up to post here. Although I disagreed with him 180 degrees on many issues (especially Jews and Israel) I never attacked his right to post here. Furthermore, he actually (unlike most Catholic FReepers) expected the "unchanging religion" to actually remain unchanged. This meant he spoke out about the "conservative" JPII and the "orthodox" VII Council. For doing this--for quoting the ancient positions of the Catholic religion against its positions today--he was constantly attacked by his "co-religionists" as "anti-Catholic" and "Protestant." Eventually, thanks to the work of his loving brothers and sisters he was banned from posting here. I didn't ask for it. The Protestants didn't ask for it. It was his co-religionists who asked for it and who would not leave him alone simply because he expected the Church to believe the same things today that it always has, which it obviously does not. Maybe that's why he had to go--he wouldn't play along with the "nothing has changed" line that contemporary Catholics like to constantly repeat.
My experience of Catholics on FR has been even more negative than my experience inside the Catholic Church. I have witnessed not just theological arguments but ethnic slurs aimed at rural and small town Americans ("Cletus," "Billy Bob," "snake handlers,") that would sound right at home coming from the mouth of Al Sharpton. But aside from the anti-Semites who used to litter this forum before 9/11, the way they treated that particular poster is absolutely the lowest thing I have ever seen here on FR.
Finally, for your information, I have every intention of voting for Rick Santorum in my state's primary (provided he's still running) despite the deplorable attitude of his co-religionists here, and I urge all other FReepers to do the same. It's just a shame that Catholic FReepers who depend on Fundamentalist Protestants to vote for their candidates can't have a modicum of respect for them.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians are all over the map when it comes to how they read Genesis, especially the former.
My experience of Catholics on FR has been even more negative than my experience inside the Catholic Church. I have witnessed not just theological arguments but ethnic slurs aimed at rural and small town Americans (”Cletus,” “Billy Bob,” “snake handlers,”) that would sound right at home coming from the mouth of Al Sharpton.
>>Where? I have never used such language.
If I have done anything, it has been to point out that American Protestants read the Bible in the context of their American individualist culture. For the most part, taking a deeper look at the historical, cultural, and linguistic bases of the scriptural texts are nonexistent.
Then why does it have a dogmatically defined perspective on the virgin birth, the resurrection, the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and transubstantiation, seeing as how each and every one of these things is a scientific impossibility and that the gospels that contain these stories are theological works, not science books?
>>Because these are core matters of Christological dogma that define what it means to be a Christian.
The hows or whats of Genesis are matters of theological opinion that are open for debate because they aren’t core matters of dogma.
St. Augustine and many of the Greek Fathers took Genesis allegorically like Philo of Alexandria did, but others like St. Ambrose and St. Basil the Great took it literally.
Unlike Fundementalist Protestantism, we don’t reject or deny the ability of human reason to comprehend matters of nature.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html
A Catholic could not be termed a heretic for believing in young Earth creationism as a theological opinion.
ouch......