Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is 'we'? Certainly not the Bible believing Christians I just got through saying who don't accept the creation and flood stories as literal.
For instance, the folks at Biologos which was founded by biologist Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project and is a Bible believing Christian.
We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.
Reality exists outside of the Bible. What is written in the Bible does not negate what scientific evidence affirms concerning the cosmos.
I don't care what other Christians believe, I know that I believe every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God, just as Jesus said we should do. That is their problem not mine.
When I use the word "we" I'm referring to the true Bible believing, aint gonna budge, take it somewhere else kind of Christian. One like me!
Because for an eternally existing infinite God, taking billions of years to bring about the evolution of the universe to its present state, and using biological evolution to bring about the development of life over earth's history is much more impressive than than poofing everything into existence over a six day period. You will no doubt disagree.
But you are a Roman Catholic. It may surprise you that the Roman Catholic church does not oppose evolution. Some individuals within the Catholic church may oppose it, but by no means does the Catholic church as a whole oppose it.
In itself the theory of evolution, which asserts the variability of species of animals and plants, is by no means opposed to religious truths.
It neither includes a necessity of assuming the origin of the human soul from the essentially lower animal soul, nor is it an atheistic theory. On the contrary, such an evolution would most clearly certify to God’s wisdom in laying such a wonderful basis for the progress of nature, provided this theory could be proved by scientific facts; indeed, for an evolution within narrow limits, circumstantial evidence is not lacking.
Do Catholics believe in evolution?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church discourages literalism, encouraging believers to recognize the various literary genres found in the Bible.
Imagine if we were able to see evolution as a sign of the unlimited potential of God’s creation, rather than a threat to our limited point of view.
For the biblical literalist, the theory of evolution is problematic because it appears to contradict the stories found in the earliest chapters of Genesis. But is literalism the best approach to understanding scripture? The Catechism of the Catholic Church discourages literalism when it encourages believers to recognize the various literary genres found in the Bible.
I don't care what other Christians believe, I know that I believe every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God, just as Jesus said we should do. That is their problem not mine.
When I use the word "we" I'm referring to the true Bible believing, aint gonna budge, take it somewhere else kind of Christian. One like me!
In other words, the facts be damned, and you'll believe what you believe regardless of the evidence against what you believe because you've gotten it into your head that the creation and flood stories MUST be understood literally and to hell with those Christians who disagree with you.
Well, you are wrong and the evidence which you reject shows that you are wrong.
I believe Genesis is an historical account. Nowhere have I called you closed-minded, or stated you were heretical. I simply asked you why you believe that you need to attack the Genesis narrative.
Once again, I have not 'attacked' the Genesis narrative. I have, as have many scholars, stated that the narrative is not to be understood as being grounded in historical fact.
Because for an eternally existing infinite God, taking billions of years to bring about the evolution of the universe to its present state, and using biological evolution to bring about the development of life over earth's history is much more impressive than than poofing everything into existence over a six day period. You will no doubt disagree.
I fail to see how that's more impressive, but okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
But you are a Roman Catholic. It may surprise you that the Roman Catholic church does not oppose evolution.
Of all the surprises you could have sprung on me, you choose this!
Are you now implying that you don't have a problem with biological evolution?
I just found it incredibly patronizing that you would suppose me so ignorant as to not know my own Church's stand on evolution.
I have not disclosed my own thoughts regarding evolution in this thread. Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I just think using the Grand Canyon to disprove the Flood is a non-starter because it's built on faulty premises, i.e. the premise that the world was created at a particular 'stage of development' - something we cannot possibly know.
I just found it incredibly patronizing that you would suppose me so ignorant as to not know my own Church's stand on evolution.
I have not disclosed my own thoughts regarding evolution in this thread. Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I just think using the Grand Canyon to disprove the Flood is a non-starter because it's built on faulty premises, i.e. the premise that the world was created at a particular 'stage of development' - something we cannot possibly know.
You stated earlier that Adam was formed as a full grown man. So you must have an opinion of the issue of biological evolution.
The Grand Canyon disproves the biblical flood because no single flood could have produced the various strata of the Canyon. If there had been a global flood a few thousand years ago as described in the Bible the Grand Canyon as we see if today would not exist in its present form because such a global flood would have destroyed the features of the Canyon which has existed for millions of years.
It is a tale of a little boy whose stuffed animals live by themselves in the woods, talk, have houses, play games, play tricks on each other, etc.
If I tell you that "Winnie the Pooh" is not literally true, that Christopher Robin Milne's stuffed animals did not talk and run around in the woods behind his house, I am not ATTACKING the book.
Thank you. It's been a source of continual bewilderment that this poster sees every disagreement or other point of view as "an attack". There's some psychological factor in that beyond the scope of the subject of this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
