SkipCaptcha
708
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 194:
Line 194: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Big Bang theory (view source)
Revision as of 18:41, September 16, 2011
, 18:41, September 16, 2011→Hmm
::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ottava, we agree on this point.
:::My question was whether you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'' (since the Pope accepts it).
:::Being from a Lutheran family, and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985 and then the sbject was considered not interesting enough to publish it, as editors of "''Physical Review Letters"'' wrote me).
:::There are many other pseudo scientific "theories" popping around and scientific journals can't waste space and time on rejecting them all and leave the rejection to "[[relativists]]". It creates an impression of the BBH being right which only "crackpots" like myself object to. But of course even a crackpot might be right especially when the ideas he/she supports are supported also by rigorous physics and math as in this case. Thanks for responding and consider the case explained. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)