First of all, where do you get the idea that Bishop Ussher is the only alternative to cosmic evolution? Do you honestly believe that until Ussher came along everyone was a non-literalist who believed Genesis was a mere cypher representing purely natural processes?
Second of all, anyone who believes that a baby can be born without a father (or that a wafer becomes the "body and blood" of their demigod, or that Mary made the sun dance in 1917, or that dead people can come back to life, or that J*sus multiplied five loaves and two fishes to feed five thousand people, etc.) can believe the universe suddenly and supernaturally came into existence as a fully functional entity 5771 years ago. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in any of these, because each is a rejection of judging what happened in the ancient past from "how we know the world really works." Cosmic evolution and the "big bang" are based on nothing in the world other than the fact that we see mountains, rivers, canyons, stars, galaxies, novas, etc., coming into being today and retroject this natural process back to the very beginning and assume that the origin of the universe was along the very same lines and in obedience to the very same laws. By the same logic we would know that babies can't be born to virgins or that dead people don't come back to life.
There is one and only one reason why Catholics single out young earth creationism as an object for derision, scorn, and exclusion: it's associated with the wrong type of people (the Bubbas in the trailer parks). And it seems that the "universal church" doesn't have room for Bubba. It allows American Indians to bring their totem poles with them, but Genesis is out. Genesis is "un-Catholic."
I note that you earlier disputed my assertion that most Catholics regard Genesis (especially the first eleven chapters) as didactic mythology. You ridiculed this notion, but now confirm that you hold this position yourself, since Genesis' only purpose to you is to teach "spiritual" or "theological" truths and contains no historical facts.
You know, I tried to be Catholic for four years. And I noticed that all the publications extolled Juan Diego's tilma and the blood of St. Januarius but that every article on Genesis condemned understanding it has factual history at all.
The so-called "universal church" doesn't want Bubba, and since I *am* Bubba, and it doesn't want me (or people like me), then I resent the obviously bogus claim to universality.
now, if I take your answer, whatever it may be and say that is official jewish doctrine, that's incorrect of me. If you take your interpretation of a question to guess at hidden doctrine, that's trying to put kabballah into ordinary forum responses.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that qabbalistic interpretations are against forum rules. Where in the sam hill did that come from?
I don't claim to know exactly what happened or exactly how G-d created the world (unlike hypocritical scientists who believe in chr*stian "miracles"). I do know that Genesis was written by G-d Himself. It is not the product of "oral tradition." Every single letter was dictated by G-d to Moses, including the sizes, shapes, crowns, and spaces between. I also know that Genesis contains actual factual history and not merely "theological" or "spiritual truths."
I also know that appeals to a "big bang" or other natural phenomena to explain ex-nihilation is unnececessary, that it is not at all "obvious" that the world could not have come into existence in a fully functional state just as Genesis describes it because the laws of nature did not begin to function until the world was fully formed and set into motion on the Sixth Day (la`asot, as the text says). And I know that people who cling to uniformitarianism for cosmogony while rejecting it when it comes to where babies come from are snobs and hypocrites.
I also know that this is precisely the 5771st year of human history, which began on the Sixth Day of Creation with the making of Adam and Eve and that everything from that point on is literal history. And I have absolutely no reason whatsoever for rejecting the previous five days as literal history either.
I apologize for thinking you were posting from Poland, but since you use the Polish flag you are quite aware that that is the message that is conveyed, and it is obviously the message you wish to convey. Next I suppose you'll condemn the "dishonesty" of my own screen name!
Finally, as I pointed out — your statement of inference based on my question is as silly as anyone believing the evil Protocols of the Elders.
“Juan Diago’s Tilma”...sounds like a great name for a mariachi band...keep up the good fight ZC ! ...magritte