I have no idea why you are quoting me on that when I made no such claim. its very misleading
I'm sorry if that's the way it sounded, and that wasn't what I was trying to imply.
For what it's worth, I did originally use the term 'you' in that sentence, and then I specifically changed it to 'someone' just to avoid that implication. Again, my apologies.
You comparison doesn't work Michael. The Bible doesn't speak on issues of quantum mechanics it does however speak to the creation of the earth and life so saying that what it says should not be part of the "Christian faith" is somewhat ridiculous
Sure, but it doesn't tell us specifically
when such an event took place. That's an "interpretation" that can vary based on the individual, which is primarily dependent upon a literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.
Another very poor analysis of my position or for that matter anyone's real position. Its quite the strawman actually. Your implying a whole lot of utterly false premises which I wish you would cease from and is frankly annoying coming from a fellow believer. As a believer you should endeavor to represent the positions of other believers with accuracy not make up strawmen in your own head. As fellow heirs of salvation you owe them that at minimum.
From my vantage point, you seem to be reading a lot into my motives that simply weren't present when I was writing my response to your post. Again, I'm not trying to personalize this conversation in any way, or to misrepresent (or even characterize) your position, and I'd much rather that not occur in fact.
No one claims that Genesis one has the entire history of the planet earth. If you would actually read what I wrote then you would see myself in particular claiming it doesn't even cover the actual creation of the globe. The problem isn't that the Bible doesn't cover everything its that what it does cover doesn't fit with evolutionary teaching.
I recognize that you feel that way, but most Catholics do not agree with that particular opinion, and a lot of Christians do not agree with that assessment, including me.
Only by the most extreme mental gymnastics and twisting of the verses can you get millions of years of animals dying and being slowly modified into other species.
I don't actually expect Genesis to cover the entire history of Earth, and I tend to interpret a lot of the OT metaphorically, so that's not really an issue for me.
Only by the matrix slow motion distortion can you get the animals being brought to Adam and eve to be named over millions of years or a millions of years after they are created.
Not really IMO. You just have to accept that none of them need "names" prior to humans.
Put any young person to read genesis one and two and they won;t know where to put those events and again they don;t fit in anywhere.
Depending on your choice to interpret Genesis literally or metaphorically, that's really more of personal choice issue from where I sit.
if you can just fabricate somewhere to make it fit then a sensible teen is going to ask himself well if you can do that in genesis one why can't you do that in Matthew or Isaiah or Romans
He's/She's going to need to interpret the entire text sooner or later and the various denominations of Christianity demonstrate that such things happen all the time.
and there you have it. signs of your very own erosion of faith
It's not an erosion of faith from my perspective, even if you personally would find it to be so. My faith has always been in Christ, not in the concept of a literal interpretation of Genesis.
and your own tacit admission that you can't hold a high view of the Bible as literal with your beliefs in darwinism.
I don't even attempt to interpret the entire Bible literally to begin with, whereas I tend to so with empirical physics. That's never kept me from accepting Christ however.
I've never seen a dad control the way his children thinks. Once you start telling children that what doesn't even read like poetry or a vision is not to be taken literal theres nothing to say they won't start doing that with the whole Bible to the point it means nothing.
But as you point out, nobody controls the way various children think, and not all Christians even attempt to interpret the Bible literally in each and every instance. You're welcome to hold such an opinion, but I don't share that opinion with you. You're even welcome to try to teach my kids your viewpoints as long as you can support it with evidence, but that's unlikely to sway them just as my own opinions do not always sway them. The way I see things, my children's "faith" isn't dependent upon any specific 'scientific' theory to be true or not true in order for them to hold belief in Jesus Christ. There's no likelihood of conflict between their "religion" and science. IMO that makes their faith stronger, not weaker.
Hey maybe we shouldn't take the death burial and resurrection as literal either. some of it reads just like a historical narrative like Genesis one and thats not literal so why bother with the resurrection?
IMO Christ's greatest influence is the heart and mind in the here and now, and his legitimacy comes from the power of his message, not from any other "miracles". Frankly one might argue that thanks to modern medicine, lots of folks "literally" come back from the dead these days. Does that make them all special in the same way as Jesus? Certainly not from my perspective.
