53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 107:
Line 107: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 15:22, October 25, 2008
, 15:22, October 25, 2008no edit summary
:::::: The Bible records that the entire period from the appearance of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. Evolution completely contradicts that, so is anti-biblical. Jesus said ({{Bible ref|John|3|12}}) that if you don't believe the earthly things (e.g. history and science) that he tells us, why should we believe heavenly (spiritual) things? Much of the Bible's teaching is ''based on'' its claims about history (e.g. {{Bible ref|Mark|10|5-9}}). Give that history away to "science", and you've given away the foundation for the "Biblical Truth".
:::::: The Bible records that the entire period from the appearance of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. Evolution completely contradicts that, so is anti-biblical. Jesus said ({{Bible ref|John|3|12}}) that if you don't believe the earthly things (e.g. history and science) that he tells us, why should we believe heavenly (spiritual) things? Much of the Bible's teaching is ''based on'' its claims about history (e.g. {{Bible ref|Mark|10|5-9}}). Give that history away to "science", and you've given away the foundation for the "Biblical Truth".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::I have read both the Church's official records of the Galileo incident and Galileo's personal writings on the matter. Creationontheweb.com has an interesting article, but it simply doesn't reflect the historical documents. In them, the Catholic Church explicitly states that Galileo was on trial specifically because his advocation of the heliocentric model of the universe was contrary to church teaching. This period is also very interesting because Galileo's response to the trial is among the oldest advocations of a quasi- or even non-literal interpretation of the Bible. So after reading the primary sources, I have to say that the Galileo incident ''is'' an example of the Church quaffing science that didn't agree with them. It wasn't the last time, either: Kepler's mother was tortured under accusations of witchcraft until he recanted his own heliocentric views (though in defense of the Church, Kepler had it coming...he wasn't the most diplomatic person in the world), and the writings of every heliocentrist were officially banned for almost two centuries.
::I also want to address your second point. The Bible does record creation as having taken place over six days in the first creation story, but evolution is only anti-Biblical if you accept that Scripture is ''always'' meant to be taken literally. If we make that initial assumption, then I completely concede that evolution is anti-Biblical. However, I would argue that that assumption is unneccessary, because the instances of the Bible relying on its own accuracy are not reliant on the details of creation week. Specifically, I am referring to your citation of Mark 10:5-9. The only thing this passage relies on is the fact that God made humanity as man and woman...the details don't matter here. Now, there are certainly plenty of places where the Bible does rely on its historicity (I am thinking especially of the prophecies), but in those cases it relies on sections which are undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative. And because this is the case, ceding the historical accuracy of Genesis would not undermine the foundation of Truth, because all that the Bible relies upon from Genesis is ''that'' it happened, not really ''when'' it happened. (I'm not arguing here that we ''should'' cede history from Genesis,, because that is a separate argument. I want to assert only that doing so would not undermine Biblical Truth)
::As an aside, your citation of John 3 interested me, because I read the entire passage as an overt delineation between material and spiritual reality. "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit" - John 3:6. That's really all I can say on that...John is such a highly metaphoric Gospel that I can't interpret it any more than on a personal level.
::And I see that the page is getting too long, so perhaps we should move this debate?--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:22, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
== Roman Catholicism ==
== Roman Catholicism ==