Catholicism, evolution and young earth creationism

Catholic Culture ^ | November 10, 2014 | Thomas Van

[HiTech RedNeck]

They also asked Jesus what country he was king of.

Now let’s watch, with amusement, what blasphemy you make of that. (Hell shall be great fun for me to watch from heaven, because all suffering there is clearly due to the choices of its occupants.)

[.45 Long Colt]

When I read stories like that placing doubt on Genesis and the veracity of Scripture, I can’t help but wonder if Catholics (and others) aren’t being set up to believe a new grand lie about man’s origins. There are at least some Vatican observers who believe that is the case. They believe Rome will eventually disclose some sort of alien origin for mankind. They claim Rome has been working on an alien disclosure for a while. Of course that seems far-fetched and I have no way to know if they are even close to correct. Perhaps they have connected dots that should not be connected. But there is enough information out there to say they aren’t crazy to be asking questions about what Rome is doing or what some in the Vatican actually believe. High officials within the Roman church, including the pope, are the ones who keep mentioning the idea of baptizing aliens, not Protestants/Evangelicals. And it cannot be denied elements with the Roman church, particularly the Jesuits, have long had an interest in “astrobiology.”

“The Secret Vatican @ Alien Connection”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHzsDTHYW4

That’s a link to a video of a fascinating presentation by a guy named Tom Horn, who is a former pastor turned author. I’d never heard of him before someone pointed me to this video several months ago. He sounds rather dispensational and charismatic, so I’m sure he’d disagree with much of my traditional sovereign grace Baptist faith. That said, I don’t sense he’s making these things up. If nothing else it’s a highly entertaining presentation.

[Zionist Conspirator]

They also asked Jesus what country he was king of.

Oh. So that's who you think you are.

Now let’s watch, with amusement, what blasphemy you make of that. (Hell shall be great fun for me to watch from heaven, because all suffering there is clearly due to the choices of its occupants.)

So, in the little world that exists inside your head, creationists fry in hell???

Hell shall be great fun for me to watch

You really should get some help with that. Sadism of that magnitude is not a sign of a healthy mentality.

[Buggman]

Sadly, not everyone does. I’ve been having these discussions a lot with my oldest daughter lately.

[DaveMSmith]

Ah well, from Swedenborg:

Secrets of Heaven 66. There are in general four differing styles in the Word. The FIRST is that of the Most Ancient Church. In their mode of expression, when they mentioned earthly and worldly things their thought was of the spiritual and celestial things which these represented. For this reason they not only expressed themselves by means of representatives but also, to bring them to life, they arranged them in quasi-historical sequence, and this gave them extremely great delight. This style was meant when Hannah Prophesied and said,

Speak that which is high, that which is high; let that which is ancient come from your mouth. 1 Sam. 2:3.

In David those representatives are called,

Dark sayings from antiquity. Ps. 78:2-4.

From the descendants of the Most Ancient Church Moses came into possession of these stories concerning Creation, concerning the Garden of Eden, and of the event, down to the time of Abram. [Gen 11:26-]

[Buggman]

What, Hashem can heal a barren womb in a 90-year-old and create life from scratch, but that He would mark the Messiah with a miraculous conception is just too much to believe?

[RnMomof7]

But of course there is reason to believe that a cracker becomes the flesh of Christ ... They drift further and further from the gospel

[Hacksaw]

Ordinary language suggests metaphor in the matter of the "virgin birth."

Unlike say, zapping everything into creation in a week.

[Salvation]

You are talking about the host, correct? It is not a cracker.

[Zionist Conspirator]

What, Hashem can heal a barren womb in a 90-year-old and create life from scratch, but that He would mark the Messiah with a miraculous conception is just too much to believe?

What, Hashem can heal a barren womb in a 90-year-old and create life from scratch, but that He would mark the Messiah with a miraculous conception is just too much to believe?

Evidently one of us has misunderstood the other.

I took your post as a defense of "theistic evolution" and an attack on literal young earth creationism (in the name of the original Hebrew, of all things!) and my sarcasm was aimed at you.

Although I am not a chrstian and don't believe in the "virgin birth," my point was to ridicule and expose the hypocrisy of chrstians who accept that "miracle" while claiming that G-d could or would not have created the universe supernaturally (as if any other manner of creation were even possible!).

I apologize if the misunderstanding was on my end.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ordinary language suggests metaphor in the matter of the "virgin birth."

Unlike say, zapping everything into creation in a week.

What is the matter with you people today? Evidently you are unaware of Catholics and others who insist on the totally unscientific "virgin birth" while having the brazen 'ovnayim to reject creationism because it's "unscientific."

I was being sarcastic with regard to hypocrites who believe in the virgin birth but reject creationism. Such people deserve to have their inconsistency and hypocrisy thrown in their faces.

[CynicalBear]

Well that was a read of the carnal mind of a Catholic.

[CynicalBear]

>> Does one need sound, air, language, and a sense of hearing in order for this to be a true statement?<<

Evidently in the carnal mind of a Catholic they do.

[CynicalBear]

>>We disregard you though we have pity upon you.<<

Yep.

[CynicalBear]

>>"We?" What country are you king of?<<

Him and I would be a "we" wouldn't it?

[Parody]

Kevin Edwards would do better to shut his mouth and be thought a jackass than to bray out this pathetic materialist sophistry and remove all doubt.

1. “If young earth creationism is true, then there is little to ask about the world.” Many fields of scientific inquiry would have to be abandoned, including earth science, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Physics and biology would be seriously undermined.

Yeah, right; and just because we don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, we'll have to abandon dentistry. The truth is, these fields are languishing under the fools who actually believe in materialist myths about non-existent processes producing something from nothing. Earth science, geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, and biology were all flourishing back before materialist mythologists infested academia and started stinking up the field with their stupid myths about non-existent (conveniently taking place under conditions impossible to reproduce in the present, and therefore thoroughly unfalsifiable) processes producing something from nothing and specified order from generalized chaos, in violation of both Laws of Thermodynamics.

At least when I'm believing in a miracle, I know the difference; and nobody's paying me to fill impressionable young minds with the absurdity of thinking miracles are scientific the way they've been paying those parasites in academia to do with their evolutionary sophistry.

2. Young earth creationism implies that God deliberately set out to deceive us, since all relevant scientific disciplines tell us that the earth is very old. “If the world is deliberately constructed by God as a sham, then what confidence can we have in any 'facts' we can determine about the physical world? …What confidence can we place in God if one of the main purposes of creation is deliberate deception?”

No, it's you ever-equivocating theistic evolutionists who've regularly implied that God deliberately set out to deceive us, since you keep insisting that "No, really! God was just kidding when He clearly and unambiguously claimed to have created everything miraculously in Genesis!" Apparently, the Bible is all supposed to be (re)interpreted according to the materialist myths of the anti-Christian God-hating atheist and neo-pagan cult whose boots you sycophants are all licking in hopes that you won't lose your position and tenure at the temples of academia.

By the way, if you sniveling lapdogs think you're impressing any of your anti-Christian overlords in academia with your sycophancy, think again. They appreciate all your brown-nosing, and how useful you are as weapons against real Christians and real Christianity--really, they do--but they can't possibly respect anyone as double-minded and hypocritical as you. If you try to take the "theistic" part of that "theistic evolution" sophistry you're spewing at us into the (government-funded) classroom or the lab, they'll tell you as plainly as I'm telling you right now (and far less politely): you can't have your cake and eat it.

Incidentally, Kevin Edwards & company, as long as you pathetic lapdogs continue to lick up to the atheist and neo-pagan powers and principalities you've chosen as your masters while growling and baring your teeth at creationists for serving the God you claim to be serving too, we can't possibly respect you either. No one can serve two masters, you know.

3. On the other hand, if evolution is true, it should put us in awe of God’s power. It means that God was able to create everything as He wished, simply by setting up the starting conditions from which the whole universe would develop. “Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller has likened this to a billiards player. If we saw someone go around the table making shot after shot, never missing, we would be impressed. How much more impressed would we be by a player who sinks every ball with a single shot?”

To the contrary, evolutionists' materialist mythology is all about removing the need for having God at all. Moreover, if you back-stabbing theistic turncoats ever actually read all that "scientific" crap you profess to believe, you would know that the supposed processes by which completely random and undirected events supposedly create something out of nothing and order out of chaos are insanely wasteful and inefficient.

Millions, nay, billions of blind ends and epic failures are required to produce a single success, which then has to propagate itself into millions and billions of further failures to produce another success. "Success" itself is rather vaguely defined, since evolution has no purpose and no direction. To proclaim that God had to let nature go through all this nonsense to produce us rather than just creating things with a word and a thought as the Bible plainly states He did is to proclaim God's impotence and irrelevancy and the falsehood of Scripture, just as your mocking anti-Christian overlords in academia want you to. Creationists rightly respond: let God be true and every last fool of academia be a liar (Romans 3:4).

The "cool kids" you losers are trying to impress are are going to Hell, which prompts me to ask: if everyone else were jumping into the Lake of Fire, would you? In any case, sucking up to bullies in hopes of impressing them never works. You really should have figured that out at least by the time you graduated junior high school.

4. “There is no compelling reason to read Genesis literally, but there is a compelling reason not to read it literally.” For example, when we are told that God said “Let there be light,” a literal interpretation would mean that God spoke actual words, which, as St. Augustine points out, would presuppose the existence of sound, air, language and a sense of hearing with which to perceive it. Augustine also remarks that it makes no literal sense to say that days and nights existed for three days before the sun was created.

Augustine also said:

“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”

Moreover, it's not at all absurd to suppose that God spoke actual words even in the absence of sound, air, language, and a sense of hearing to perceive it, especially considering that thought can operate in the absence of all these things (albeit not very long for those of us in these mortal bodies that require air to sustain them). We have no reason to believe these words were necessarily in any earthly language, or that anyone but God was there to hear them, but just as I can speak words in my mind and hear myself saying them, so too can God, who made us in His image.

As to literal days and nights before the creation of the heavens and earth, I agree it would be impossible to reckon them by contemporary terms before the sun, moon, earth and stars existed to regulate time. As St. Augustine also states in those writings of his that Edwards is so shamelessly cherry-picking in support of his heretical materialist doctrines, however, time itself is one of God's creations. As such, it is not at all absurd to suppose that time could pass in terms of days and nights, even if they were not exactly the kinds of days and nights we have now.

After God created time (and space, since our studies have discovered that space and time are a continuum), light and darkness were God's very first creations... that first day (Genesis 1:3-5). To say that God could not discern "day" from "night" when He'd already separated light from darkness (and was already regulating their comings and goings) is to declare God impotent and thereby cast blasphemous aspersions on the Truth of God's Word. While St. Augustine rightly understood these might not be "literal" days in the sense of involving a sunrise and sunset and the revolutions of various celestial bodies (since they didn't exist back then), one can little doubt that Kevin Edwards is twisting his words here to say things that they don't say, the same way he and his fellow heretics twist the very Word of God itself to make it say things it doesn't say.

5. Even if the earth were young, that would not prove the existence of God, and there is no reason to believe that an atheist would convert after being convinced of a young earth. On the other hand, the idea that “faith mandates a young earth” does turn away reasonable nonbelievers. Again, Augustine warns Christians not to make Christianity look stupid by speaking ignorantly about the natural world.

Kevin Edwards now flails away at a straw-man by pretending that the point of studying creation is to prove God's existence as if our God had nothing to do but exist! To the contrary, what we are seeking is to dispel the materialist myths that are blinding people to God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence by denying that nature proclaims God's glory. It is you "theistic evolutionists" who are making Christianity look stupid by sucking up to God's enemies and pretending that God must be subordinate to their materialist myths!

Again, attempting to impress those "reasonable nonbelievers" to which Edwards refers by contorting the plain wording of Scripture has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a mad exercise in utter futility. The idea that "science mandates the Creator's submission to the Creation" is blasphemous and heretical, and all who promote it are working against God. It is not "reasonable" for unbelievers to demand that God be "scientific" according to their false definitions of science.

God is not a materialist and not bound by material laws, and if the many thoroughly unscientific miracles recorded in Scripture are not sufficient to persuade these materialists of the error of their ways, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31). I dare say Pope Francis, Kevin Edwards, and all other theistic evolutionists are danger of damnation for trusting man's word over God's. Creation is historical; evolution is a myth. Compromise between the Truth of Scripture and the false materialist mythology of evolution is impossible. You cannot serve both God and the "cool kids" of the "scientific" community.

Maybe Roman Catholics who believe in the infallibility of a mere sinful man who's been spewing all kinds of nonsense in his foolish attempts at ecumenism are just being consistent with their own inconsistency to compromise their faith with the materialist myths of evolution as well, but actual Christians should prefer literal historical miraculous six-day creation over the incoherent sophistry and pseudo-scientific myths of evolution.

[CynicalBear]

>>It is not a cracker.<<

It's a cracker.

[CynicalBear]

>>I was being sarcastic with regard to hypocrites who believe in the virgin birth but reject creationism. Such people deserve to have their inconsistency and hypocrisy thrown in their faces.<<

Yep, I sure missed the sarcasm tag. With you not believing in the virgin birth that type of sarcasm doesn't work for you. Just sayin.

[ravenwolf]

I’ve noticed that even the most die-hard “theistic evolutionist” invokes the literal interpretation of parts of the Bible whenever it suits their purposes.

---

That’s right.

[RnMomof7]

You are talking about the host, correct? It is not a cracker.

lets see we take the words of Genesis as allegory, but the words of the last supper as written..UMMMMMM what is wrong with this picture ???