Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
biblebeliver wrote:
To which Anthony responded:
Sorry, theistic evolution is by definition not naturalistic. What part of "theistic" do you fail to understand, after many post and many threads, you still post saying that theistic evolution isn't theistic. It makes it harder and harder to think that you simply don't understand, and harder to avoid the conclusion that you are being dishonest.
There are Creationists who interpret it to mean Creationism. Some do literal. Some do the data. Some do all three. Anywhere you look that's all you see. Creationism.For Catholics it is not a requirement of the faith or salvation that we believe in a literal interpretation
There's no reason to adopt that and data showing that you should not.I believe that the human body evolved over time,
There are Creationists who interpret it to mean Creationism. Some do literal. Some do the data. Some do all three. Anywhere you look that's all you see. Creationism.
There's no reason to adopt that and data showing that you should not.
Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism
For some Christians it may be, but not for all.
For Catholics it is not a requirement of the faith or salvation that we believe in a literal interpretation of the Creation story or theistic evolution.
We are free to believe either.
Whether we go to hell or heaven is not determined by whether we believe the Creation story or theistic evolution. God has a hand in all creation.
I believe that the human body evolved over time, however, the human soul did not evolve, it was not inherited from our parents like our bodies, it is specially created by God.
Man does not know everything about the origins of man, theologians or scientists. It remains a mystery and there is nothing wrong with saying or teaching that.
No experiment refutes Creationism. But they do refute Darwinism.Of course there is scientific evidence to support the theory of human evolution.
Good for them.Only square earth believers would argue otherwise.
Concerning biological evolution, the CC does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the CC has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
Not everything about the origin of man is a mystery.The problem with evolution is that it is ripe with conjectural opinions that are contrary to sound doctrine. Adam cannot represent a 'certain number of first parents' so population thinking is moot with regards to human origins. Then of course there is the problem of the clear testimony of Scripture with regards to the creation of Eve from a rib or Adam taking a wife from a population of apes.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Humani Generis 37)
See where conjecture can lead to some head trip problems here?
For Catholics there is a salvation issue, it's called original sin:1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)Do you know what anathema means?
Grace and peace,
Mark
BTW, love the St Francis quote
Thanks for the response Mark.
To further clarify your view, do you think that theistic evolution and Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are synonomous? If you think there is a difference, then what is that difference?
No experiment refutes Creationism. But they do refute Darwinism.
Good for them.
Luckily for the RCC, all we see is Creationism and we already ascribe that to God. So there's no problem there.
By no means did I read all 8 pages of discussion on this topic.
Just to put my 2 cents in. How can anyone claim to be Christian yet believe in evolution, when no where in Genesis does it discuss and say evolution was how God created everything. We may be in a fleshly form here on this earth but I think the more important point is we have souls and spirits, something no animal has.
We are more spirit than flesh so why argue about the origins of our flesh. Its like arguing about what breed of mut you have when in reality its a dog in the end. We are Gods children and it hurts me to see fellow believers lower themselves to the level of an animal. Focus on God and not your fleshly origins. Who cares your bodies are gonna be dust one day.
Shouldnt we all be focusing on God because only he has all the answers and I feel most of our opinions are probably wrong. We are men, men of folly and sin. Humble yourselves and live with humility. I am overcoming this daily.
But I do believe in creationism and cannot see any truth in evolution.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
(some might say this out of context but you cannot believe in evolution and creationism, the will not mix or stand together)
Physical evolution cannot create a soul which isnt a physical substance, but spiritual, a invisible substance much like our Heavenly Father.
This position [the RCC allowing theistic evolution] clearly contrasts with that of many fundamentalist Protestant
sects. Lacking belief in the Church's teaching authority, fundamentalists
have usually insisted on treating Genesis as a scientifically accurate, as
well as historically true, account. Unfortunately, this stance has often
appeared in the media as definitive Christian doctrine. Its details have
contrasted so sharply with established scientific knowledge that "Christian
belief" has been held in ridicule.
All historical events are taken on faith. The fact remains that there is no reason to adopt materialistic faith. You cannot confirm Creationism with physical science. All experiments support it though. They also refute materialism.No experiment confirms Creationism.
Creationism is totally dependent on 'faith'. Creation Science is 'snake oil' and will not win any arguments in scientific or academic circles let alone stand up under serious scrutiny.
It's good that you are speaking for non-Christians but what so they have to do with anything? Materialists ask you to pick up the random formation of man strictly on a faith basis. Creation overlaps into physical science by the way. Just like protein synthesis overlaps into sports science. Physical science is not the source of Creationism.Us Christians have no way of convincing others that the Creation story is true. Saying 'Well, you have to believe it because that's what it says in the Bible' is ineffective. Non-christians don't care what the Bible says, in fact it does not say anything, it cannot speak for itself.
Are you a big-bang Darwinist? Do you believe in the random formation of man which states that everything originated via a singularity? You have to love that enduring tangent.Let me just clarify. Do you believe in Creation Science or just the literal interpretation of Genesis that the world was created in 6 days?
You say that Darwinian naturalistic assumptions exclude God as a cause. I'm still trying to clarify here, do you think theistic evolution is the exact same in that it also excludes god as a cause or is God meaningful in the TEs view? I'm just trying to unravel your understanding of our view.You tell me, at what point can we scientifically conclude special creation? Genus, Phylum, Kingdom? More importantly based on what, the clear testimony of Scripture, the limits of and lack of evidence for molecular mechanisms required?
I'm saying that the a priori assumption of universal common descent is mutually exclusive with God as Creator. I'm saying that Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are universal acid, a transcendent metaphysical axiom that excludes God as cause, period.
So if you think there is an exception or I am exaggerating or unfairly characterizing Theistic Evolution then feel free to show me the error in my reasoning.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Evolution can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Neither can it rule out or prove that God is the origin of everything including life. Biology isn't the right field for that sort of inquiry. One might as well claim that basket weaving disproves poetry.
All historical events are taken on faith. The fact remains that there is no reason to adopt materialistic faith. You cannot confirm Creationism with physical science. All experiments support it though. They also refute materialism.
It's good that you are speaking for non-Christians but what so they have to do with anything? Materialists ask you to pick up the random formation of man strictly on a faith basis. Creation overlaps into physical science by the way. Just like protein synthesis overlaps into sports science. Physical science is not the source of Creationism.
Are you a big-bang Darwinist? Do you believe in the random formation of man which states that everything originated via a singularity? You have to love that enduring tangent.
The same could be said of creationism. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God.
No actually, the same could not be said of Creationism.
Believing in an evolutionary process does not automatically exclude Adam and Eve.
I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that. You're simply asking me to accept materialistic assertions because one can.I am saying what Catholics are free to believe - that God has a hand in all creation regardless of whether the process was instantaneous or evolved over a period of time.
And who are you speaking for exactly? Are you even aware of the fact that you're being used to promote materialism?You can only speak for yourself, not all Christians.
There is no reason to believe that God had his hand in a non-viable process.No, I am not a big-bang Darwinist. Darwin did not believe God had a hand in ANY creation, whereas I believe God has a hand in ALL creation regardless of process.
Creationism is in the literal, it's in the interpretation, it's in the data. It's in the Old, it's reaffirmed in the New. Everywhere you look, you see Creationism.I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. I've explained the different schools of thought in my earlier message.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?