Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
There was a "beginning" to the creation process, and it didn't "end" until Adam and Eve had been created. All this constitutes the "creation of the universe," and Genesis narrates the history of these events just as it narrates the events of Joseph's life in Egypt.
I couldn't agree more though! That's clearly the case. If Genesis 1 doesn't describe development then I don't know what does.
But as I understand it, you reject the type of development being there taught in favor of evolutionary development. Or you accepting the historicity of the events there described, including the creation of Adam from the ground, Eve from his side while he slept, etc.?
Ha! Well, no I am not actually. The scientific methodology he used was partly wrong, I get that. I'm more interested in the *philosophical principle* he was defending, which was that creation of potential was wholly within Christian revelation. (Incidentally, I say partly because the scientist who disbelieves miracles is constrained to admit that abiogenesis happened at least once.)
As I understand it, Augustine did not teach that things "evolve" but that everything was created at once in the first instant. This constituted the problem with the six days in his eyes.
You understand more or less correctly, however he was not dogmatic about it, he was just offering his opinion. From what I read he certainly didn't give credence to the idea that the animals created in types could become other types. However, again philosophically speaking, his arguments from abiogenesis and on the phases of the moon show he wasn't opposed to the notion that God created things potentially which would come to perfection later.
We don’t agree, but I respect both your courtesy and your thinking. May God lead us both where we need to be in His time!
Thank you, likewise.
Good to have you on FR.
Please don't put words in my mouth and bear false witness. I was clearly talking about a general revisionist view of historical Christianity from Protestants as was touched upon in the follow up conversations in the body of the post.
I am sorry if I wondered off the road and spoke about views Fundie Protestants hold beyond the article.
There is no need to understand the workings of creation, which only G-d can do
I find that a curious statement, and would be obliged if you'd elaborate on it.
It seems to imply that some fields of scientific inquiry might be "off-limits" ...
1) Is that a correct interpretation of your statement?
1a) If so, what are those fields?
2)If not, what does it mean?
realize you must regard me as a simpleton,
That bit, frankly, got old a long time ago. Your commentary on this forum cannot possibly have come from a simpleton.
Hah. Generalize much?
I do not believe in sola scriptura, but what is the difference between Protestants rejecting the real presence and you folks rejecting everything else?
If you are talking about Creationism vs. Evolution, I think Claud pretty much has been addressing these points. If you are talking about stoning homosexuals, bats being birds, etc., then that's another issue.
Again, I don't see the appeal of evolution to you. Things develop all the time and always have. Why can't you simply be philosophically satisfied with the development of babies in the womb, of acorns to oaks, and of larvae to adult insects without seeing something appealing with de-literalizing the first two (three? eleven?) chapters of Genesis?
I am sorry if I wondered off the road and spoke about views Fundie Protestants hold beyond the article.
Liberal Protestants are every bit as revisionist and every bit as "sola scriptura" as Fundamentalist Protestants, but I notice liturgical chr*stians take relatively few pot shots at them (you have been an exception).
It seems that just as Jews prefer liberal to conservative chr*stians, so liturgical chr*stians prefer liberal to conservative Protestants.
By its very nature, science is limited to the world as it operates today. How the universe came into being is by definition beyond its purview, just as you would regard the literal historicity of J*sus' virgin birth as beyond its purview. What is controversial about that? Simply put, science cannot, from viewing the processes of the universe as they exist today, say anything about how those processes came into existence, since the "laws of nature" did not exist at the time those processes didn't exist, or were being created. As I said, the creation of the universe is primarily theology and secondarily history. It is not science at all.
Your commentary on this forum cannot possibly have come from a simpleton.
It's very kind of you to say that.
I am surprised that this rather evident syllogism escapes so many.
I do not believe in sola scriptura, but what is the difference between Protestants rejecting the real presence and you folks rejecting everything else?
If you are talking about Creationism vs. Evolution, I think Claud pretty much has been addressing these points. If you are talking about stoning homosexuals, bats being birds, etc., then that's another issue.
It's strange that you would condemn me for generalizing when it is your intention to adhere to that generalization.
Your equating a legal prescription (the stoning of homosexuals) with a statement of historical fact (the universe was created in six days, Adam died at the age of 930), is most unfortunate. How in the world can the two be equated? Even you must believe that at that time at least, homosexuals were to be stoned--unless you're one of those really radical types who insist that those primitive people "thought" that's what G-d wanted them to do but today "we know better." (And btw, male homosexuals cannot be stoned today because the Temple doesn't stand and the Sanhedrion doesn't meet in the Lishkat HaGazit. When those conditions are met, than any Jew who, by the testimony of two eyewitnesses and after a warning has engaged in homosexuality, must be stoned. Non-Jews, as I understand it, do not have to wait for the Temple but may impose capital punishment now. And btw--non-Jews are only permitted to execute by beheading.)
As for your dismissal of the Torah because it calls bats "birds," it does no such thing. The Torah is in Hebrew, not English or any other language (and cannot adequately be translated). It classifies bats (if that's what `atallef means) as `of--from the verbal root `ayin-vav-peh (or `ayin-peh-peh) meaning "to fly"--hence as "flying creatures." And you wish to take today's totally arbitrary scientific classification system and use it to condemn the Torah as non-factual? Way to go, Dr. Bultmann!
Looks like my generalization is pretty accurate.
science cannot, from viewing the processes of the universe as they exist today, say anything about how those processes came into existence
I am surprised that this rather evident syllogism escapes so many.
Because then they'd be no better than "those awful people" who live in trailers and worship at "Billy Bob's Glory Barn."
You know I don’t really see how this relates to whether or not the Church Fathers were Catholic, but I’ll give you my take on your subtopic.
My problem with most creationists is that for too long they have allowed the Darwinists to control the debate.
Darwinism is not now nor has it ever been about whether or not mankind descended from tadpoles. Darwinism is about the left’s desire to destroy traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace God with the intellect and their tool for this has been to use eugenics to create the “right” population (i.e. the Master Race).
They have been delighted to spend the past century debating evolution, because while this debate has gone on they have MURDERED ONE BILLION HUMAN BEINGS all while being able to hide behind the facade of science. The average person has NO CLUE the amount of deadly destruction that Darwinism has brought. And the Darwinists have been able to do this because they know that deep down most people DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. The Darwinists also know that most people DO believe in God and DO believe that He created the Universe, so they simply shift the debate to an argument about time, biology and geology. The result, they make it appear that most people agree with them, when the reality is that most people haven’t even got a clue about their real agenda.
It would be like having a debate about the Nazis and only focusing on the Nazi book burnings. The Nazis would simply debate the matter of censorship because they realize that deep down ONLY the anarchists are totally opposed to all forms of censorship (I don’t care what anyone says, but at some point there is SOMETHING that they will agree the government should ban, perhaps it has to do with politics, perhaps it is pornographic images of children, perhaps it is depictions of violence, but at some point EVERYONE says enough). Now, this would no doubt be a very lively and heated debate, but it could also go on indefinitely without EVER addressing the true evils of Nazism.
I looked at the long quote and found no use of the word "physical" which you introduced in an earlier criticism of our teaching, and which prompted my suggestion that the "spiritual/physical" pair, while interesting, was not clearly relevant to our teaching.
Consequently I do not see the relationship between the quote and the point I was making -- and that's why I say do your own writing -- not to say I think you shouldn't quote but to beg that if you are going to ask me to read a long passage you give a hint as to its relevance. (If I'm going to ride my ADHD into the ground, I'd like to think it's going to be for a worthy cause, not an irrelevancy.)
But quote offers an analogy which is actually helpful in showing that it is NOT a physical change but is nonetheless "Real" -- unless you contend that when the king says "You are a major," a physical change happens in the poor officer.
In other words, your anti-Darwinism isn't based on a defense of the Word of G-d at all but on philosophy. Again, my generalization of Catholics and other liturgical chr*stians holds good.
I wonder how many people believe J*sus was conceived without a father and came out of his mother's side in order to prevent tearing her hymen? For some reason that seems terribly important to people who don't care whether or not the Word spoken by G-d is absolutely true.
OH Geez.
Can you see, I'm not asking for agreement, how that reads like, well, like saying Sola Scriptura took 1,500 years (say, until the Articles of Religion about "nothing that is not read therein nor may be proved thereby...") give or take -- or the idea that Jesus was man and God took until around 450?
Rightly or wrongly, we think that Justin Martyr was already talking like "Everybody in the Church 'knows' that it's the body and blood of Christ." Then we think that over subsequent centuries there was a process of refinement of that assertion. A major step in that process was the adoption of Transubstantiation (hereinafter: Trnsbtttn)as authoritative.
But that doesn't mean it's all wrapped up. Further development will be confined within the bounds of that explanation. So somebody (like me) who had a fatal attraction to Heidegger and wanted to try to discuss the Eucharist within the Heideggerian "scheme" would deserve everything that happened to him no, I mean: would have to show how his attempt was a re-casting or another way of looking at Trnsbtttn.
I mean, we start with something like "the desires of man's heart are wicked from his youth" and then think about how much the evil of a deed is intrinsic to the deed and how much is involved with the intention of the person doing the deed. Then somebody says "The object specifies (that is, says what 'kind' it is) the act." That's nice but there's still doctoral work to be done on what buzzackly an 'object' is.
And, while any of this may have great evangelical or moral use someday, the average Xtian putz doesn't need to worry about it, anymore than he has to know what Aristotle, Thomas, and a cast of thousands mean by "substance" to make a good and pious communion.
No, the Bible doesn't say much about physics but it certainly says a great deal about history--and that's what the "creation stories" are.
The Creation stories end with the creation and the failure of man to fulfill his role as the gardener of Eden. What I find most interesting is how radically different it is from the Creation stories of the societies around. It is an anti-myth and it leaves no room for the gods: there is Creation and the son of God, Adam. The only other actor is the serpent, which is to say the spirit of evil. who leads Adam and Eve astray by positing the idea of the gods. It is something that recurs throughout the Biblical narrative: the illusion of power. The gods of Mesopotamia/Egypt, and their kings and priests, who stand over the people as their masters. We see it today.
Every time one of you Catholics gives me the idea that you're not as bad as the rest of them I wind up getting bit. Bravo.
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.