|
drj11 -> RE: CONSPIRACY!!! (5/25/2008 12:27:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
You know Dr., as much as you or I ask this question (and I know you've asked it countless times), they fail to present any decent, subjective scripture worthy of consideration to support their opinion. After finding themselves trapped in this corner, they resort to interpreting verse contrary to their context. They use "Creationists" verses (Genesis 1-3 is a start) and say "Well, that might not necessarily mean EXACTLY that" and so on. They make God's own words out to be the most relative, touchy-feely, says what I want it to say, CONFUSING book over written. The last time I checked, God was not the author of confusion, right? If God said He made man from the dust of the ground, and women by man's rib, then He did. No questions asked. If Evolution were true, no female existed thousands, even millions, of years before Adam was created...so how on earth did his kind survive? Did he resort to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah to reproduce, if it were possible? Heaven forbid....
quote:
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92-122) covers the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:
"...as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (Ott, page 92)
quote:
In Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, evangelical author Gordon J. Glover argues for an ancient near-eastern cosmology interpretation of Genesis, which he labels the theology of creation:
"Christians need to understand the first chapter of Genesis for what it is: an 'accurate' rendering of the physical universe by ancient standards that God used as the vehicle to deliver timeless theological truth to His people. We shouldn’t try to make Genesis into something that it’s not by dragging it through 3,500 years of scientific progress. When reading Genesis, Christians today need to transport themselves back to Mt. Sinai and leave our modern minds in the 21st century. If you only remember one thing from this chapter make it this: Genesis is not giving us creation science. It is giving us something much more profound and practical than that. Genesis is giving us a Biblical Theology of Creation."[2]
And please... a round of applause for this following quote!
quote:
Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai in the 2nd century wrote:
"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.
Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."
quote:
By definition, no. By social consequences and usage, yes. First of all (and this doesn't prove anything...it just "adds to the fire") almost every Atheist is an evolutionist. And the majority of evolutionists are Atheist, if you divide them into religious groups (Yes, I have included Atheism as a religious group). Second, if you ask an Atheist why he doesn't believe in a God, he will say there is no evidence to persuade him otherwise. This argument implies he indeed has evidence against a God. If he does not, the argument he used against the belief in a God can be used against him in his belief against a God. He would therefore be ignorant fool. When you ask this individual where his evidence comes from, 999/1000 times, he will point to evolution. Evolution now becomes his "religion", or at least the foundation of his "religious" beliefs. So no, evolution is not Atheism per se, but has become a religious ideology, of which Atheists cling to. If I were a Christian with this arcanum, confidential, mystical revelation (actually, very simple logic), I'd be VERY skeptical before I am naively brainwashed and persuaded by the dumbfounding (no pun intended) cognition of "99.98%" of the world's biologists (bologna!).
I think you are over generalizing here. I know quite a lot of atheists, many of whom haven't the slightest interest in biology or evolution. They see theological platitudes of the mainstream religions as unnecessary and inadequate, but don't have any particular interest in or knowledge of science. They reject religion on its own merits (or lack thereof), not because of scientific theories.
|
|
|
|