Posted on 06/06/2013 5:44:09 AM PDT by Colofornian
I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with the “Book of Nature”, Mrs. Don-o. But, aside from that, I stand by my assertion. Science is nothing but the branch of discovery by which we. as Christians, attempt to discover and use the principles of the universe created by the Lord. It is limited by our fallible human natures and in no way can be given equal footing with Scripture.
We have to remember that not all of what is known as “science” agrees with the Bible....notably the theory of evolution. I don’t know if this is what you mean when you mention secondary causes, or reason and coherence. When science contradicts Scripture, and evolution does, we have to make a choice what we will believe.
God IS a God of reason and coherence, because He is Truth. But He is also a God of unknowable mysteries and astonishing miracles.
Thanks for the re post, missed it before.
Everything I know about Mormons and Joseph Smith I learned from South Park.
Mike Adams is a good writer, and also a pretty good 8th inning guy for the Phillies.
Should seem to be too obvious. But here goes.
A great many conservative Christians reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with the Bible.
Now this is, IMO, a position that can be argued. But it is not possible to argue that the vast majority of scientific evidence does not point towards the truth that evolution takes place. Without evolution the whole notion of living things being organized into hierarchies of “related” organisms makes no sense.
Personally, I believe God created life and the evolutionary process. I see it as the equivalent in biology of free will in sentient beings.
God could have created spirit beings and humans with no free will. But he didn’t. He apparently wanted friends, not slaves, and was interested in having things happen other than what he directly caused to happen.
I see similar mechanisms in evolution, though I don’t discount the possibility that he could of course intervene in the process when he chose. Evolution was the method God chose to use to create the wild diversity of life we see around us.
I realize a lot of Christians disagree, and I respect their opinions. I just think they are wrong.
So you choose to argue w/God? His Word is to be BELIEVED and not argued with.
Without evolution the whole notion of living things being organized into hierarchies of “related” organisms makes no sense.
We are to BELIEVE as it is written and 'NOT lean unto your own understanding' despite what 'natural evidence' you think there is and/or what doesn't 'make sense'. You really think with your natural mind you can understand the supernatural things of God? That is PRIDE!
Jesus says...'only believe'. You can be argumentative all you want, disobedient and prideful - it will get you nowhere and/or somewhere you don't want to be.
It doesn't take faith to 'see' something in the natural.
"Without faith no one can please God."
Who are you trying to please?
Neither I nor the Catholic Church "throw the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the garbage can."
For instance, there are at least 4 different ways to interpret the word "day" in the Creation accounts. The Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma.
There are likewise a half a dozen major, different ways to account for the biological diversity of life on earth. (Here I'm including even wild ones like Francis Crick's idea of "panspermia.") Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma, either.
I think the Cathoic Church shows an admirable and humble restraint in areas where our knowledge is so decisively incomplete.
But we've been around the block on this several times before, ZC. I will refrain from getting into it with you again.
And Catherine, I fully agree with this statement of yours:
"God IS a God of reason and coherence, because He is Truth. But He is also a God of unknowable mysteries and astonishing miracles."
Well said. We're on the same page there.
I am sorry that Joe Smith modelled himself after Mohammed.
God's concept of creation and of Himself is manifest in the Logos, that perfect system of all truth, beauty, goodness, order, precision and harmony. Those things discoverable empirically and with human reason do not require Divine Revelation, but are rather Natural Revelation. Whether math, physics, biochemistry, and even scientifically observable phenomenon and processes as the adaptation of species within a dynamic environment are all equally miraculous. An Old Testament pedagogy, absent an understanding of the Logos, cannot understand or explain Natural Revelation, only deny it.
Peace be with you
That is a brilliant observation. Islam was initially classified as a Christian heresy when it first appeared, but when the degree of error was properly recognized it transcended heresy. Similarly, Mormonism, drawing heavily (but not completely) upon Christian Scripture transcended heresy only by the degree to which it embraced and exceeded the operating principles of Protestantism.
Peace be with you
Thank you, Mrs. Don-o. God’s blessings to you.
We actually have zero evidence that the Virgin Birth did not occur, whereas we have lots of evidence, IMO, that evolution did occur. The only reason we can offer for disbelief in the Virgin Birth of Christ is that we've never seen such a birth. But that I've never seen a black swan or a little green man is not proof they don't exist.
IOW, the general tenor of past history can be determined from the evidence. Occasional miraculous interventions, which to my mind are just God making an exception to the rules, cannot be disproven by scientific means. Or, of course, proven using the same methods.
bttt
Evolution is simply an often repeated fraud. It cannot stand close examination. The first 3 chapters of Genesis is most certainly true, as is the whole of the Bible.
“The Bible and the natural sciences are in agreement when correctly interpreted.”
The false premise here is that human beings who “read the book of nature” are infallible like the scripture. I’ve read the Book of Nature myself, and reject them.
I wasn't looking for your Book of Nature to be explained! However, it still has NOTHING to do about KNOWING God! It shows that HE IS ALMIGHTY which we already know through His Word. The world He made for man to enjoy and He did it ALL in the days prior to HE making man.
When I say it has the same Author as the Bible, I mean that God is the Master of all reality, and not just the Master of the text.
EVIL is real - are you saying God is the Master of that, also? Master of the text? It is text to you? IT is HIS Spoken Word divinely inspired by HIS OWN SPIRIT!
Why did you leave out the part I responded to... your actual scientific evidence....is just as authoritative as Scripture
'Man' having evidence of God's creation is equivalent to GOD'S WORD??? Seems you have lifted up 'man' to God status.
I am saying that God spoke, and all things came to be, an exact representation of what He willed. So we can discern His Word in both what He created and what He inspired.
God did not create Evil per se. Evil exists because God created wills which were capable of opposing His will, and some of them did. It is a privation of the good, since Evil cannot create anything, it can only grab and twist, pollute and ruin what God made; it can just say "No."
God IS the Master of all things. The devils in Hell know this, and tremble.
“No, I’m not lifting up man to God’s status. That would be an absurdity, since our knowledge and virtue are as nothing compared with His.”
You lifted up evolutionary theory, a creation of man, to the level of infallible scripture. If evolution is true, there is no doctrine of original sin, since, actually, all the organisms in the world were living and dying and “evolving” long before death could enter the world through Adam’s fall.
Archbishop Sheen spoke a great deal about science. I concur with him that human scientific undertakings are merely the discovery of what already exists because God has created it.
No scientist has ever created something from nothing.
I agree with you, Mrs. Don-o that Catherine’s statement is a keeper.
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.