Posted on 06/11/2014 7:36:49 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
Yes.
I guess the "resurrection" of J*sus actually teaches us that the flowers bloom in the spring. Tra-la.
I’m sorry to hear that... you’ve been on FR for quite a while.
I really hope you’ll be able to be back soon. :-\
Which is why the Modernists latched so enthusiastically on to Teilhard de Chardin's theories, as a means of legitimizing the notion of "evolution" toward a higher religious understanding.
Faith (based on Divine Revelation) and reason (based on natural revelation) must remain in harmony. Therefore, "natural science" will never disprove Divine Revelation.
No credible evidence has been presented in support of macroevolution from ape to man. The same fossil record that disproves the "new earth" theory does not provide a chain of evidence establishing the proof that Adam and Eve evolved from apes, yet in the field of genetics, the consensus that all humans descend from Mitochondrial Eve actually provides scientific support of Genesis.
Regarding the Six Days of Creation, there is no scriptural reason for cognitive dissonance were one to believe that "day" might not refer to a 24-hour period.
"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past." Psalm 90:4
"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past." Psalm 90:4
The verse about the thousand years (which originates in the Hebrew Bible, not the "new testament") is merely making the point that G-d exists outside time altogether. It is not an excuse to subject the supernatural act of ex-nihilation to current natural physical laws.
You are yet one more example of a right wing traditionalist Catholic who rejects the literal historical truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Where does this antipathy to Genesis come from? Why do Catholics consider the historical facticity of Genesis to be such a threat to Catholicism? Just what is going on here?
"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve. "She" is a postulate of science and has no connection to the Biblical narrative.
My opposition to evolution is actually more accurately described as my defense of the literal/historical sense of Genesis 1-11. My rejection of evolution has nothing to do with science for the simple reason that cosmogony is outside the legitimate purview of science altogether. Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up. It only has access to the world as we know it today and has no competence when pontificating on realities outside that.
My position is also based on simple logic. You believe in miracles. Why then do you believe that the act of Creation was a natural phenomenon accomplished by purely natural means? The calling of everything into existence from absolutely nothing is certainly as great a miracle as the "virgin birth" (do you believe natural "secondary causes" were used in that?). The insistence that G-d used purely natural means to create a world in which miracles constantly occur is simply ridiculous.
I call your attention to allendale's post 19, in which he insists that "Catholics don't believe" that G-d actually smote the first born of Egypt (and that's not even in Genesis!). Are you fine with this as well? Which "church father" taught this?
You're all such disappointments. I'm sorry.
Faith (based on Divine Revelation) and reason (based on natural revelation) must remain in harmony. Therefore, "natural science" will never disprove Divine Revelation.
Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up.
Says who? Divine Revelation sheds light on natural law. Scientific observation can play a legitimate role in developing a clearer understanding of the latter.
Why does "reason" mean "subjecting the supernatural act of creation to presently-existing natural laws?" You think that's "reason?" It sounds like quite the opposite to me.
Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up.
Says who? Divine Revelation sheds light on natural law. Scientific observation can play a legitimate role in developing a clearer understanding of the latter.
Does the word "supernatural" mean nothing to you? How can science shed light on areas completely outside its purview? Do you allow science to explain the virgin birth or resurrection from the dead or transubstantiation? No? Then how in the name of all that is reasonable do you insist that naturalistic uniformitarian science can tell us how G-d supernaturally created the world?
You Catholics are absolutely hopeless. You rail against Teilhard and liberalism and modernism but you're married to scientism and the "demythologization" of the Bible. Did Jerome believe in evolution or the documentary hypothesis? If he didn't and the Church does today, how can it claim to be semper idem??? If the Catholic Church were a business it would shut down for false advertising!
And thank you so much for ignoring my question about the death of the firstborn in Exodus. I gather from this that you also believe the whole thing is a didactic fairy tale.
Some "unchanging conservatives" you Catholics are!!!
"Subjecting the supernatural act of creation to presently-existing natural laws" is a logical impossibility. It was God who first put nature in motion. However, since God is the author of natural law and has made Creation subject to it, to observe and deepen our understanding of natural law is to honor God. An event being recognized as Supernatural (e.g. the Resurrection) presupposes the existence of natural law.
I gather from this that you also believe the whole thing is a didactic fairy tale.
Who are you channeling? It's certainly not me.
Although Blathernaut and I disagree on the reasons for the crisis in the Church, I certainly do not believe he is hopeless. He appears to be a solid Trad.
However, for those who are now suggesting that the Catholic Church teaches that the Ten Plagues including the killing of the first-born are not to be taken literally, I just don’t know what to say. Nothing shocks me anymore when dealing with post Vatican II Catholics.
He's also a solid evolutionist. Apparently evolution is a necessary shibboleth to prove one isn't "trailer trash." So, since the Catholic Church is "unchanging," that means Jerome was an evolutionist as well?
However, for those who are now suggesting that the Catholic Church teaches that the Ten Plagues including the killing of the first-born are not to be taken literally, I just don’t know what to say. Nothing shocks me anymore when dealing with post Vatican II Catholics.
Apparently what you're supposed to do is circle the wagons and let liberal lunatics speak in your name and never say anything about it, but then back up those liberal lunatics whenever they get in an argument with "fundies." Since you didn't do this, I'm sure your Catholicism will be questioned.
Pinging this thread (while I’m still able) to you for your interests. Please read the article carefully, and then the responses of Catholic FReepers. According to some of them, the author of the article can’t really be Catholic because he’s against evolution.
I would be careful about using this verse because it still doesn't support millions of years of evolution.
I found this link interesting (although I admit I have only skimmed it):
http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
Absurd. You might as well claim I'm Pope Francis while you're at it.
The point I was trying to make is that since the author of Scripture is God, not man, the word "day" means what God intends it to mean, not what man interprets it to mean. IIRC, Sts. Augustine and Aquinas held this view.
He's also a solid evolutionist.
Absurd. You might as well claim I'm Pope Francis while you're at it.
You've been defending evolution and the "right" of science to overrule Divine Revelation in giving us the facts of how G-d created the world. All one has to do is read your posts.
If not, then why does someone who denies that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and says all Christians are dupes of the giant fraud of Christianity care what such dupes believe about the Creation??
Obviously, they only care as a means to their end of attacking one group of people they call dupes of the fraud Jesus Christ more than another group of said dupes of the fraud Jesus Christ.
[sarcasm]Uh-oh!!! You're reading stuff from the Kolbe Center! "Everybody knows" that they're heretical Protestants because they accept the literal/historical truth of Genesis! No "true Catholic" would ever want to have anything to do with them![/sarcasm]
Seriously? Perhaps you need your glasses checked.
I’m confused. That website doesn’t look Protestant to me (or are you saying that VII Catholics consider it Protestant....you know, because it’s Traditional Catholic? LOL)
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.