157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 184:
Line 184: + +
Talk:Big Bang theory (view source)
Revision as of 19:22, September 15, 2011
, 19:22, September 15, 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)
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)
==References==
==References==
<References/>
<References/>