Quote:Also, the story of Genesis needed to be told in a way that people from 6,000 years ago would understand, and in a way that people from 6,000 years ago would write it. Do you think those people would understand anything about science/evolution/the big bang at that time?

Exactly.  That's why they invented god to explain all the things that could not be explained.  "I don't understand it; so, magic!"

*edit*
I don't know why my quote didn't work right.  Quote from CL

Another point I forgot to make is that Jesus did help clear up a lot of the things in the OT and the traditions/beliefs of the time. Which I think is part of the reason He came... to show us the *true* way. Where the OT said an eye for an eye, Jesus specifically denounced it and said to love and forgive our enemies. Where the OT talked about killing and war, Jesus said whoever lives by the sword will die by it. Where the OT said sinners should be stoned to death, Jesus directly stopped the stoning of an adulteress. All Christians should refer back to the examples and teachings of Jesus, and when they use some OT story as an excuse to do horrible things, that's entirely on them.

(January 20, 2016 at 9:12 am)robvalue Wrote: Or he could just talk to us, right now. Why were those small groups of people in one particular time period so important? We're here, he's here so we're told, yet he watches us all argue about what the message is meant to be. It is about the single worst way I could imagine communicating a really important message, especially while you watch people kill and torture each other over it and don't step in to clarify.

Agreed. You would think an multi-omni creator of the Universe would show up now and clear things up. "Yeh, that thing you call the big bang well that was my doing all along, not this 7 days nonsense. Now here was how I did it......"

(January 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what is so hard to understand. Yes, his work as a scientist and his work as a priest were 2 separate vocations. The fact that he could be both things at the same time without compromising each position shows that the Church takes no issue whatsoever with the acceptance of evolution. There is no conflict between the 2. That's the point.

While it might not be a problem for individual Catholic's, it does present a conflict with the creation story in the book that the religion presents as the word of god.

(January 16, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: While it might not be a problem for individual Catholic's, it does present a conflict with the creation story in the book that the religion presents as the word of god.

That is true. If a person accepts evolution, they cannot simultaneously believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

It's my understanding that the Catholic Church views either position as acceptable - a Catholic may believe in creationism or evolution (with the understanding that God set the evolution in motion).

(January 16, 2016 at 4:49 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If your particular religion involves taking the story of Genesis literally, then yes.

Catholicism would be one of those, I was raised catholic and never once was I taught to not take the creation story literally or anything in bible for that matter.

Your post intrigued me so I did a bit of Googling, and here is what I have found from the Catholic Church's catechism:

I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION

282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

285Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".125

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

+++

Reading this, I don't get the impression that the Catholic Church is afraid of science. Do you?

(January 16, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what is so hard to understand. Yes, his work as a scientist and his work as a priest were 2 separate vocations. The fact that he could be both things at the same time without compromising each position shows that the Church takes no issue whatsoever with the acceptance of evolution. There is no conflict between the 2. That's the point.

Then it's not a particularly flattering point. If the message, essentially, is that being Catholic doesn't mean you're not open minded and you can actually make a useful contribution to science, it's as patronising as telling women not to worry about not being male because they too can be scientists.

Oh, and the Big Bang isn't part of evolution theory.

It's really, really hard for you to let go of this, isn't it?

After having it pointed out to you that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest (and there were literally dozens of famous scientists who were also Christians throughout the course of history), you can't bring yourself to simply drop the subject.

And why is this? Because you really don't want to acknowledge that there is NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity, do you?

(January 20, 2016 at 10:47 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 9:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because, you're claiming that Catholics are required to believe in the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis. Which is a 100% completely false statement. Most Catholics believe the story in Genesis is allegory/symbolism for God being behind all of creation, and for human beings to have free will and have the ability/intelligence to choose between good and evil.

Hi CL, long time, no chat.

I can empathise here because my mother raised me in her Irish Roman Catholic tradition which interprets the Genesis creation story literally: Original Sin was a real thing that Jesus had to save us from. As I grew in the faith, I was introduced to Catholic, non-literal interpretations and that opened my eyes. You see, my father had taught me about classical Greek, Roman and Nordic mythology; that their religions were a myth was never in doubt. Once I saw that the Genesis story was as much a myth as the creation of Midgard, I understood that the entirety of christianity was made up.

My question to you is, understanding (as you do) that there was never a literal Adam or Eve, Eden, Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil (and subsequent fruit), a talking serpent etc., how/why do you believe/accept that Jesus was created to save you from the Original Sin that never happened?

First, the Catholic Church holds that there was a first man and woman who received their human nature from God. Whether their names were Adam (which simply means "man", btw) or not is unimportant. Consequently, Catholics who accept creation are obligated to accept the premise that there was an original set of human parents.

Second, it's not reasonable or important to the account of God's creation of the world to believe that Moses had to have all the facts of that creation (whether literal or via evolution) correct. God left some things (like DNA, for example) for us to figure out later. What IS important is that GOD created all things. How he did it is secondary.

Third, the account of the fall of man tells us of man's rebellion against his creator. The talking snake is a literary device. So, your assumption that Original Sin never happened because the story of the Fall of Man contains an apple and a serpent misses the point badly.

(January 20, 2016 at 10:57 am)mediocrates Wrote:

Quote:Also, the story of Genesis needed to be told in a way that people from 6,000 years ago would understand, and in a way that people from 6,000 years ago would write it. Do you think those people would understand anything about science/evolution/the big bang at that time?

Exactly.  That's why they invented god to explain all the things that could not be explained.  "I don't understand it; so, magic!"

*edit*
I don't know why my quote didn't work right.  Quote from CL

This doesn't follow.

Knowing WHO did something is different from understanding HOW he did it.

The authors could be spot on regarding God's creation of the world without comprehending the science of evolution.

(January 20, 2016 at 9:12 am)robvalue Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 8:45 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: That seems like a pretty inefficient way to get a message across; I don't understand why an omnipotent, omnipresent being would constrain itself to the limitations of bronze age tribals.
If God wanted to communicate a message to people, why, of all the ways he could have done it, did he decide to "inspire" a handful of desert dwelling nomads in an isolated portion of the world to present his message in the form of vague parables and spread it by way of centuries of genocide, ignorance and atrocity? How many indigenous peoples were slaughtered or enslaved so that this message could get across? How many people were subjected to unspeakable torture and atrocity? How many were burned at the stake? How much violence has arisen out of disagreements over these vague texts? How much suffering have people endured simply because God couldn't think of a better way to communicate?

Or he could just talk to us, right now. Why were those small groups of people in one particular time period so important? We're here, he's here so we're told, yet he watches us all argue about what the message is meant to be. It is about the single worst way I could imagine communicating a really important message, especially while you watch people kill and torture each other over it and don't step in to clarify.

If God did show up, would you worship him?

Cecelia and others (including Christopher Hitchens, btw) have been very clear that they would not. And if he did, would this trample on anyone's free will?

So, what would be the advantage of such an entrance into our little world?

In the very unlikely chance that god turned out to be a thing I would not worship it. I never really understood this desire by people to do all that stuff, it would like praising gravity for keeping you on the earth, pointless.