Replies

Zionist Conspirator:

Well I have always used Fundie to describe a certain theological framework among Protestantism and I would tend to agree that it is usually associated with rural Southern Protestants, so on that point, I would agree. Nevertheless, that would not be tied to any particular ethnic group per se, but cut across various Anglo-Celtic groups such as Scots, Welsh, English, Northern-Irish, etc.

However, I would personally refer to a Black Protestant as a Fundamentalist, if it were accurate, just as quick as a Southern American Protestant. As for Biblical Criticism, it is a “methodology” to look at Scriptures, it is not my favorite, but as someone trained as an academician, I don’t run from biblical scholarship that uses the Historical-Critical method, I read for what it is, and if their are things I can learn from it, I do, if there are things that challenge or question or do not clearly articulate established Catholic Doctrine, then I ignore it.

Personally, my favorite methodology of Biblical Scholarship is the “Patristic Methodology” which both my Navarre and Ignatius Catholic NT rely on.

Orthodoxy means correct doctrine, and yes I do ascribe to orthodoxy as it relates to core Doctrines [Trinity, Incarnation, Christ as Divine Person, with Divine and Human Nature, Resurrection, Ascension, One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins, etc. in other words, all the confessional points outlined in the Nicene and Apostles Creed].

As for Evolution, that is a Scientific question, not theological, and if you reject the basic premise that animals and other living organisms “evolve” that is your business and right. I don’t. It is just I don’t believe that believing in the basic notion of evolution means that I am an atheist-pagan-Communist and that believing in the basic theory of Evolution means I reject the theology rooted in Genesis that God created everything from nothing which is the first statement of the Nicene Creed......I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth and things visible and invisible.....

You and I have posted before in the same thread so I think if you are indeed being objectively honest, you will concede that my basic premise remains, I have not started threads bashing or misreporting Protestant beliefs and my use of Fundie or bible-thumper was used only in the context of threads started by Protestants which set out, in my view, to distort Catholic Teaching. It is in the context of aggressive Proselytizing that I think Pope Francis was talking about where various Protestant sects go and start with distorting Catholic beliefs in historically Catholic Countries to bring them into their various Protestant group.

Catholics have historically evangelized by going into the world and Institutionally setting up things like Hospitals and Schools that treat the unevangelized with Human dignity and by showing them the Love of Christ, they are drawn into conversion by God’s Grace working thru his Body the Church. So that is evangelism, it is just not the type of Evangelism that many Protestants here on FR view as being evangelism. What many here call evangelism is nothing but distorting Catholic Doctrine, misrepresenting Catholic Doctrine and yes in some cases, outright lying about Catholic Doctrine which is nothing but sinful and consistent with proselytizing as viewed by Pope Francis.

Personally, my favorite methodology of Biblical Scholarship is the “Patristic Methodology” which both my Navarre and Ignatius Catholic NT rely on.

An Ignatian, huh? De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Von Speyr? That explains it.

We're not talking about "the theology of Genesis." We're also not talking about whatever is going on now in the fully-created world. We're talking about the veracity of the Genesis narrative and the historicity of the events described.

:Sigh: I know from past experience that you won't understand this, but I'll try for the hundred millionth time anyway.

Just pretend (humor me, please) that some scientist came to you and said that J*sus was not born of a virgin because such a thing is scientifically impossible. Now I hope you will agree that it is fully within the province of science to tell us how babies are conceived and come into the world. So . . . are you going to roll over and say "all right; that's science, so I guess it didn't really happen, but I still believe in the theology of the virgin birth narratives."

Are you going to say that?

No you are not. You are going to become, just for the moment, an "illiterate, inbred trailer park redneck" and insist that G-d can do anything and that this was a "miracle," and the Holy Mother Church teaches this (your version of "Bobble sez!") and that's good enough for you, and you feel sorry for him because he doesn't have the "gift of faith."

Now come on, admit it. That's exactly what you'd say.

Now, what is the difference in my belief in the literal veracity of the stories narrated in the first eleven chapters of Genesis and your belief in the scientifically-impossible virgin birth because your Church or your "new testament" teach it? What is the difference . . . huh? Why is it so foreign to you to consider the possibility that just as the chrstian "gxd" allegedly "intervened" to bring about a pregnancy without the participation of a human male, even so (lehavdil!) G-d created everything from nothing in six days in a purely supernatural manner, after which the laws of nature became fully operational?

Really, what is the difference? Is Genesis 1-11 somehow metaphysically "more impossible" than any other miracle/supernatural phenomenon? Just what is Catholics' deal here? I've never seen any theistic evolutionist Catholic try to find any purely natural means used by the chrstian "gxd" to bring about the "virginal conception" (such as in vitro fertilization or something). Really, what is the difference? Why not be satisfied with "gxd" using purely natural means to bring this about just as you do with the creation story, or the rest of Genesis 1-11?

I'll bet you don't even see the irony. Your mind is just so locked into the possibility of the supernatural and miracles when it comes to the "new testament" and equally locked into naturalism when it comes to the "old."

Well prepare to learn a lesson, because I'm going to tell you exactly why Catholics will insist on one scientific impossibility while denying another (after all, it's a "scientific impossibility," isn't it?). You don't even have to thank me.

It's sociological. Yep. That's it right there. Bluntly, the "virgin birth" inspired the intellectuals of the Middle Ages and the "glories of chrstendom" whereas the miracles of Genesis are the "trailer park miracles." And for that reason alone you can't even consider the possibility that they may be just as literal as all the other miracles you believe in supposedly are. "Virgin birth=Thomism; Genesis=trailer trash. And you aren't trailer trash, are you? Never mind that the "virgin birth" and the "resurrection" and the "loaves and fishes" and "walking on water" are all scientifically impossible; indeed, not one whit less so than the world being supernaturally created in six days.

Think that's not true? Go to any Catholic forum. Any attacks on evolution or affirmations of Genesis are greeted with cries of "that's Protestant!!!!!" No argument. No logic. No reasoning. Just "that's Protestant!" Now what does that tell you?

Before closing, one incontrovertible fact: whatever else you may think of what I have said, it is undeniable that the fathers of Trent were literalist creationists. The Catholic Church of that era taught creationism. The contemporary Catholic Church rejects creationism. The Catholic teaching on creation has changed. Truth in advertising, dude.