Are You...

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:51 PM']Don't lump us all into one!  I am a young-earth creationist, but I never debate it.  It is a matter of speculation in the eyes of the Church; I don't force it on other people, nor would I ever discuss it in bringing someone into Christianity.
[right][snapback]644950[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey, stand for what you believe in, or you show that it is meaningless to you. Evolutionists fight hard to push their anti-Christian agenda, and those you are evangelizing are going to have questions, don't be afraid to share the truth with them. We cannot be ashamed of the Gospel. Creationism isn't some bizarre theory that turns people off to the faith, but instead most of Christiandom embraces our origins in God the Father and His creation of the world, and with a little good science to help back up your claims, you'll do just fine. You will find that Evolution is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Catholicism behind Mary and Salvation doctrines.

[cmotherofpirl]

Creationism [the 7 days or nothing] chases many many people out of the Church, it certainly did me.

[Brother Adam]

Only in ignorance did it chase you out of the Church.

[DemonSlayer]

Evolution/Darwinism are just theories, that's all they are.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I can't vote because I am neither of those things in any conventional sense.

[john6:63]

As a fundamentalist I was taught Genesis 1 and 2 were literal and John chapter 6 was figurative. I thought huh? So now that I now believe John 6 to be literal, I still believe Genesis 1 and 2 to be just as literal.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I voted creationist. If I had to pick a label, the other choices had too many anti-Christian sentiments to choose. I haven't done much study on the matter, but I believe Genesis 1 & 2 to be literal-- but also keeping in mind St. Peter's words that "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years"... I don't think the day="day" thing really matters all that much, nor does how old the earth is... It matters that however long it took, and however old the earth is, God created it. Period. All the speculating about the age of the earth and whether 1 day=24 hours seems almost too close to trying to pinpoint the Second Coming. We're not gonna know, we might as well just take 2 Peter 3:8-14 to heart and not worry so much about how old the earth is. Does it matter the age of the earth, or the Creator?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='john6:63' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:19 AM']As a fundamentalist I was taught Genesis 1 and 2 were literal and John chapter 6 was figurative. I thought huh? So now that I now believe John 6 to be literal, I still believe Genesis 1 and 2 to be just as literal.
[right][snapback]646342[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But there are parts of scripture that are clearly meant to be taken literally, parts that are obviously figurative, and some parts that fall into the gray area. How can you possibly conclude to a strictly literal interpretation of Gen1&2 from the fact of Jn 6's literal elements?

This is almost like giving a literal interpretation to something in Plato's writings because of something you came accross in Goeth's Faust.

Even the genre alone of Gen 1&2 make a completely literal interpretation unlikely at best, to say nothing of the problematics that result. I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation (which is really drawn from many sources of insight, but with a few of my own distinct points).

[john6:63]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:55 AM']But there are parts of scripture that are clearly meant to be taken literally, parts that are obviously figurative, and some parts that fall into the gray area. How can you possibly conclude to a strictly literal interpretation of Gen1&2 from the fact of Jn 6's literal elements?

This is almost like giving a literal interpretation to something in Plato's writings because of something you came accross in Goeth's Faust.

Even the genre alone of Gen 1&2 make a completely literal interpretation unlikely at best, to say nothing of the problematics that result.  I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation (which is really drawn from many sources of insight, but with a few of my own distinct points).
[right][snapback]646351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The language itself in Genesis 1 is more than enough for me to accept as history and not as allegory.

“And the evening and the morning were the first day.” “…second day”, “…third day…etc”

Whenever the words “evening” and “morning” precedes a number …”first day”, how else can you possible interpret that to mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day?

Also, Adam lived to be 930 years old. How can Adam being created on day 6 and live through day 7 only live to be 930 years, if the earth is billions of years old? Unless Adam is figurative, but that can’t be, since the genealogies trace Jesus to Adam in the Gospel of Luke.

Furthermore, if there’s no literal Adam, then there was no literal Fall and if there’s no literal Fall, then there’s no literal Hell, and if there’s no literal Hell, then what’s the need for a Saviour? Genesis is the very foundation the Gospel is built upon.

[Anastasia13]

There is no other.

I believe macro-evolution is a bunch of unfounded junk that people put together because the degree to which seems unrealistic. Besides, it contradicts the Bible. I believe God formed the animals and the plants and us and gave them life (and to Adam and Eve a soul) and they reproduced after their own kind.

I believe that some micro-evolution is scientificaly demonstrated, like the size of corn hundreds of years ago and I know there is a better example that I forgot.

I don't know exactly what darwinism is, but his observance of survival of the fittest is a scientifically valid one and in that part, he is not mistaken although certainly other things he came up with are wrong.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Light and Truth

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='john6:63' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:07 PM']The language itself in Genesis 1 is more than enough for me to accept as history and not as allegory.

“And the evening and the morning were the first day.” “…second day”, “…third day…etc”

Whenever the words “evening” and “morning” precedes a number …”first day”, how else can you possible interpret that to mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day?

Also, Adam lived to be 930 years old. How can Adam being created on day 6 and live through day 7 only live to be 930 years, if the earth is billions of years old? Unless Adam is figurative, but that can’t be, since the genealogies trace Jesus to Adam in the Gospel of Luke.

Furthermore, if there’s no literal Adam, then there was no literal Fall and if there’s no literal Fall, then there’s no literal Hell, and if there’s no literal Hell, then what’s the need for a Saviour? Genesis is the very foundation the Gospel is built upon.
[right][snapback]646497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I hold that there are both. I think it would be a mistake to say it is entirely one of the other. Certainly I hold that Adam and Eve represent literal people from which we are all decended. But I don't believe the seven days literally means seven 24 hour periods.

How can you account for the existence of a literal evening and morning when the sun and moon didn't exist until the third day?
Besides, I believe that scientific data is valid. Catholicism includes both faith and reason. To entirely discount science is fideism, not a Catholic approach. Also, the rich Theological significance of Gen. 1 is enough for me, I don't need to approach it as a literal scientific treatise on the origins of the universe. And I doubt that's what the author had in mind. The text is far more than that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I would be interested in presenting and discussing my own theories regarding evolution, Genesis and the origins of man. But I haven't the time right now to post an adequate presentation. And perhaps it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. I will say that most of it is pretty standard, but I do have some novel interpretations of the anthropological data as well as Genesis. For example I hold that Cain and Abel were not, in the strictest literal sense, the children of Adam and Eve. I have many reasons for this, although I realize it sounds strange. They are the children of Adam and Eve in a broader sense, but I believe many, many generations lie between them and the parents of the human race. I also have reason to believe that man (as such) has inhabited the earth longer than is generally taught in Biology classes. It's a complicated topic, but it would be neat to discuss.

Cheers.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='DemonSlayer' date='Jul 17 2005, 03:18 AM']Evolution/Darwinism are just theories, that's all they are.
[right][snapback]646291[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, but for some they are a philosophical world view that they believe to be grounded in science.

Based on my generalist knowledge of the subject, I believe the theories are not satisfactory. Most non-specialist folks who espouse evolution as a world-view have given assent to a rather simplistic reductionist interpretation of the actual scientific data. I think a bigger vision is needed to account for all of the scientific data. I also believe this vision would be compatible with what God has revealed; theistic evolutionary theory is not enough in my opinion.

Basically, I'm saying that evolution and religion need not be at odds, and religion (specificall Catholicism) need not compromise itself for this to be possible. Attempts at reconciling Darwinism and Catholicism often make compromises I cannot accept (such as adopting some kind of neo-Hegelian or Whiteheadian metaphysics), my own personal theory on the matter borrows largely from Augustine as well as the Medievals (notably Thomas and Bonaventure) for it's metaphysical underpinnings. Although what I suggest is hardly a reconciliation with Darwinism. I have an admittedly underdeveloped interpretation of my own regarding the origins of life, and man in particular. I'll call it LaudateDominism. hehe