The age old battle.. well at least since the evolution theorists.. (2 Viewers)

[Lexicographer]

i dont beleive that they are mutually exclusive at all. its diehard christians and any cathlics that tend to piss me off, the bible is meant to be intperpreted in your own way, and i dont see anywhere in there that shows evolution is wrong, or that the earth is only a few thousand years old for that matter! why cant both erm "theorys" live together? its not an option of picking 1 over the other, i think based on conclusive evidence that evolution is an actual process, and i tend to beleive in god aswell.

i have more repect for diehard pro-evolution scientists than i do for diehard pro-creation catholics though as the scientists have al lthe proof[ not taking that because evolution is true than god does not exist]

You are very ignorant indeed if you honestly think that Catholics are diehard fundamentalist creationists. Unlike the American televangelists you see who are very adept at memorising individual bible passages and telling everyone "what they mean", Catholics have an ACADEMIC history. The theological writings of the last 50 years at LEAST explore the concept of evolution quite a lot. What's more, the Church acknowledges quite readily that the accounts of creation in the book of Genesis are non-historical, and thus not to be taken literally.

If you choose to accept the uneducated televangelist's fiery testimony as representative of all Christian "thought" then fine. But your opinion won't gain the respect of a single educated soul, because to do so would be simply ludicrous.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

How many catholics or evangelical christians are educated to your level or are expects in theological theory?

Mmm, very pertinent point

 

[Lexicographer]

It is true that not all catholics have the same exposure to doctrine as I do (after all, I do live in a Jesuit college with three academic priests in residence). However, most catholics either don't pay attention to the teachings they dislike *ahem contraception cough* or they are grossly uneducated by Western standards and depend on the care of the parish/diocese to survive (especially in climates of extreme poverty, political hostility etc).

The first group would be the majority of catholics in the developed world (Europe etc) and the second would be the majority of Catholics in the third world (Africa, South America) - particular anti-religious "dictatorships" such as Vietnam and China (not debating the appropriateness of "dictatorship" here).

But! Diocesan bishops and parish priests still deliver teachings on doctrine each day in the form of homilies (sermons), with more important ones on Sundays. If ever the Gospel reading of the day happens to be the creation story, the priest will obviously explain the non-literal understanding we have of this (and other) accounts. What I'm saying is that even though catholics don't generally have an intimate understanding of catholic doctrine, the church provides for them within its structure.

People who don't go to mass obviously are not exposed to the homilies, and thus are often the ones who profess catholicism "but disagree with many of the teachings" - these however are also usually the most misinformed (and damaging to the Church's image due to their ignorance). Generally speaking, if a "catholic" person doesn't attend mass or take part in religious activity, they are considered lapsed rather than dissident. They do not really choose to oppose the church because they don't actually know what they are opposing.

 

[Sarah]

Hmm... your last point was interesting. I do not agree with some of the teachings and remember going to a bible study group a few years ago so to ehance my understanding of Christianity.

I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist group (well i don't think it was) but i distinctly recall the speaker (i think he was a minister) saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". I realise that most Christians don't take the genesis literally however, it's the message that genisis provide.

Thus i interpreted that speaker as conveying a msg that homosexuality was wrong.

I don't know, i don't consider myself a misinformed person becuase i don't agree with what the church say although i probably lack knowledge of the religion and the bible's teachings

 

[stamos]

If ever the Gospel reading of the day happens to be the creation story

what sort of catholic are you... seriously

 

[Lexicographer]

...distinctly recall the speaker (i think he was a minister) saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". I realise that most Christians don't take the genesis literally however, it's the message that genisis provide.

Thus i interpreted that speaker as conveying a msg that homosexuality was wrong.

Hehe I remember that quote, it's brilliant for its wit.

I do remember though that it wasn't a catholic priest speaking, it was a protestant Minister (I'm sure he was Anglican but not certain). Anyway, that bit of Genesis is not nearly so much about "homosexuality is very bad" but rather "marriage is very good". I won't go into the matter of homosexuality because my understanding is not sufficiently formed to provide an elegant answer (ie I could try, but I'd balls it up).

what sort of catholic are you... seriously

A young and moderately educated one, though I don't actually know what you were trying to ask.

 

[transcendent]

Lexicographer why not just denounce Catholicism and be an open-minded, independent and well-read Christian?

 

[Lexicographer]

I love the Church.

When I read your question, I tried thinking of a witty way to express the sheer impossibility of me ever leaving my faith. Put bluntly, I failed. There's no way I can explain it better than the first line of this post.

However, I also believe that the members each church are called to it, rather than that everyone SHOULD be in one specific church or another. We are all part of the Universal Church, all of us (though seperated by minor squabbles of theology) are united in Christ.

"Ut Unum Sint" - That they may be one.

(Besides, I am a Christian already. What you're really asking me to do is "downgrade" my loyalties.)

 

[transcendent]

downgrade? I see it as upgrading in that you transcendence the petty institutions which bind us down by it's rules. I'm saying you can go beyond the Catholic church in search of better meaning then the ones the Catholic church has given you. or you might just be content with the rules that are governing Catholicism. i see you will remain loyal to your beliefs. ah well, each to their own.

 

[Dr_Gorgeous]

I don't understand the theory of man evolving from apes. I mean, couldn't the 'evidence' gathered to support this theory be apes or monkeys that have lived around that time and died out? If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
And secondly, the majority of people in this world have a belief in a higher being. Why must science contradict that?

 

[Generator]

I don't understand the theory of man evolving from apes. I mean, couldn't the 'evidence' gathered to support this theory be apes or monkeys that have lived around that time and died out? If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Different evolutionary paths, perhaps?

And secondly, the majority of people in this world have a belief in a higher being. Why must science contradict that?

The majority? Are you quite sure? It may well be a belief in a higher force, not necessarily a higher being, too. Besides, science rarely contradicts the notion of a uncomprehensible force, rather it (at times) points out the inadequacies in institutional religions.

 

[malkin86]

I don't understand the theory of man evolving from apes. I mean, couldn't the 'evidence' gathered to support this theory be apes or monkeys that have lived around that time and died out? If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
And secondly, the majority of people in this world have a belief in a higher being. Why must science contradict that?

Not incredibly long ago, there was a doco shown on the ABC - I forget the title, but the premise was that two English scientist-people (man and woman) were going to have no food, no water, and go and live with our closest relatives in the jungle for a week. They could barely keep up with the apes on foot, (whilst the apes were in the trees) they were dehydrated, hungry and sick most of the time from eating the same foodstuffs as the apes (raw fruit), ants, etc.

All that this shows is that humans aren't equipped to live like apes. But before you say that modern humans aren't a good example, earlier humans had the same small feet, and the same shorter arms and longer legs like us. Even if we are adapted to eating junk food now, this physical problem would have been the same for early humans.

The man and woman were led back to their truck by the group of apes after only 3 or 4 days... The apes knew that the people couldn't hack it.

Humans and apes rarely intersect in terms of what they do in their daily lives - we might fight with them over fruit and nuts occasionally, but that's about it afaik, and there are usually plenty of fruit trees. So we don't affect how they live their lives, and they don't affect how we live ours. So we can both live together without one of us suffering from the contact and dying off. (Poachers aside here...)

So, that's why there are both humans and apes. :uhhuh:

Science doesn't have to contradict a belief in a divine being. It can be seen as the ultimate in free will - a plausible alternative to a divine being. Surely a god would not have given us free will if the only alternative to faith in the divine being was patently false? Science can also be seen as showing us how truly great a divine creator is, and the attention to detail.

 

[Xayma]

I don't understand the theory of man evolving from apes. I mean, couldn't the 'evidence' gathered to support this theory be apes or monkeys that have lived around that time and died out? If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
And secondly, the majority of people in this world have a belief in a higher being. Why must science contradict that?

We didn't. We evolved from a common ancestor. Which means that apes werent in the same form as they are now and a comparison of can humans live like apes is pointless.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

And secondly, the majority of people in this world have a belief in a higher being.

Arguing from majority is a fallacy and adds nothing constructive to the discussion. A long time ago the majority of the inhabitants of the Earth might have believed the Earth was flat.

 

[Lexicographer]

downgrade? I see it as upgrading in that you transcendence the petty institutions which bind us down by it's rules. I'm saying you can go beyond the Catholic church in search of better meaning then the ones the Catholic church has given you. or you might just be content with the rules that are governing Catholicism. i see you will remain loyal to your beliefs. ah well, each to their own.

Yes, after I posted that I did think it may seem rather insulting to those who are not part of any specific church (and duly apologise if anyone read it that way).

First of all, I do not regard the churches as mere "petty institutions which bind us down". To me, the real binding force in the world is the secular world, with its ever-changing fashions and "values". To me, the rules of the faith (which you see as restrictive and cumbersome) are really gifts from people who have devoted their lives to the understanding of faith. These rules help me release myself from the expectations of an evil world, they give me a solid benchmark when everyone around me is drowning in moral relativism. There are many in this world who proclaim that "there are no absolutes, merely extremes" but I say they are extremely wrong* because some things MUST remain unchanging. As an example, 20th Century society changed its mind in saying that now it is ok to kill [defenceless unborn babies] pre-natal humans as long as they are not older than a certain age or "will not experience a quality life" (without ever giving solid, infallible definitions of the key terms such as the appropriate cutoff age or the required quality of life). I hate to use the expression "moral decay", especially since the last century also brought a vast advancement in morals (ie increased recognition of equality of women) but for matters such as these there is simply nothing more appropriate. These rules are what keep us human, what seperate us from all other life forms. They are also the very standards that keep us on the path to faith - as we rely on better educated people to teach us in the academic sphere, so too we rely on better educated (and hopefully more prayerful) people to guide us in faith.

*of course they'll turn it around with "well you're entitled to think that"

Arguing from majority is a fallacy and adds nothing constructive to the discussion. A long time ago the majority of the inhabitants of the Earth might have believed the Earth was flat.

I agree with this statement. What the majority believes is not necessarily the truth - quite often it is simply what they have been told by those with an agenda (I refer to prime examples, the Government and/or the Daily Telegraph). Tommy Lee Jones put it best in that movie Men In Black "...no, a person is smart but people are stupid".

Hmm, I know that really long thing above is going to get picked apart by someone, but please bear in mind that if I start another "religion != moral superiority" tirade that I (and the Church) acknowledge that you don't need faith to lead a moral life, so don't try sticking that on me. It's just that with the rise in trendy atheism has come an undeniable slackening of social expectations.

 

[heybraham]

a lot of people tend to believe in science...notably many high school students, but isn't 'believing' and acknowledging scientific knowledge without doubting a bit short-sighted? i mean surely you guys must have been skeptical of the bible when you read it (or for some of you, you might not have even read it for yourself). Jesus apparently praises the healthy skeptic who enquires at his/her hearts content.

this is what i asked my friend the other day, an attempt to continue a rather engaging discussion...

'...you aren't religious are you?'
'nah, i'm not religious. i believe in science'
'are you proud? your interpretation of your environment is based only on like... the few textbooks you've seen in high school'
*no reply*

think clearly, the bible doesn't disprove the evolution theory...it anything, it proves it. imagine if genesis sounded like this : 'around 500 billion years ago (some huge random number), God appointed (btw the jewish word for appointed is translated to english as made) the big bang, this big bang theory illogically disobeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy. then...around 100 billion years later, he allowed his clouds of matter to form into planets. and one of these planets was called, 'earth'. then life was appointed..etc. then he rested...'

if you think about it, God could 'appoint' anything at one moment, 1 day or even 6 as it is written in the bible. i believe it is written as 6 days, because in the ancient times, they'd be going, 'wtf is a billion, i don't even know how to properly count to a thousand'. if you ever read poetry, you should understand what a 'metaphor' is. 6 days = 6 steps? i could vouch for that.

and faith in the dictionary is defined incorrectly, it implies that it is illogical, but something logical could also require faith. for example, the chair you're sitting in now, requires your faith that the 4 legs will support your weight, that your knowledge and understanding of this is true. hence, faith.

hope this kinda clears things up for you guys (btw, im doing 3 sciences for my hsc, so don't make an attempt to downplay my interest in science...or ill smack you )

btw...just out of nowhere, i sometimes don't all this talk of technology sometimes, because the bible says technology is just a more efficient way of sinning, and i just saw the other day my friend taking (inapproprite) pictures of girls at the beach with his mobile phone and that kinda got me thinking.

 

[Iron]

Evolution and Religion aren't really compatible because the former suggests a way to rationally explain our existence. It may also suggest that we're not created in God's image etc. But language isn't precise. Anything is open to interpretation (not least freaking legislation). Why stop at genisis with the metaphor theory? I think the whole bible is a metaphor of that which we don't know... but we can have fun guessing.

 

[Lexicographer]

I reject the statement that evolution and creationism are incompatible, on the principle that I reject the statement of general incompatibility between religion and science. We don't know nearly enough about either to make any real, valid and definitive statement about that.

An element common to science and religion is "discovery". Over time, through patient research and consideration we discover new insights in both science and religion. What was accepted understanding yesterday may be rejected tomorrow (world is flat, man is dust) and in both fields we must be open to this reality.

 

[transcendent]

Yeah institutions may have it's benefits: social conhesion, shared beliefs and so forth. Just the problem I have with preventing abortion is that if not for science those 'unborn potential humans' would be dead, the mother might be killed in the process, complication in birth and even after birth to be given a life of misery and suffering is no life at all but then you may think differently since it is a life. But for what purpose do we need another human being on this Earth? For what purpose is protecting that potential life? Are you going to look after it if it was rejected? There are many babies left abandoned in gutters, in dumpsters or thrown into the river to drown. Are you to save all these lives? It's a waste, life goes on and we are all destined to die ever hoping that there is something beyond death. Why is it that people search for religion. It is a form of spirituality; the idea that you have more then just mind and body, that you have a spirit. I strongly believe in the spirit and the spirit world. The accounts of people dying and being brought back to life and stating to see a light or their dead relatives whether this to be false or not does not matter. It is evidence enough that there is more to life then the atoms and molecules that form our bodies. Maybe this is why you are anti-abortionist but by being anti-abortionist, anti-euthanasia you are binding a soul onto this Earth when really it was there time to transcend mortally. So is it possible that for every life we save we are really taking away from 'God's' purpose? That he wanted that soul to join him and that science has prevented it? These are questions I've never heard any Christian or scientist discuss and THESE are the questions I seek answers to.

 

[Lexicographer]

Hmm I would sometimes argue with a lot of your post, but the thing I will focus on is this:

Maybe this is why you are anti-abortionist but by being anti-abortionist, anti-euthanasia you are binding a soul onto this Earth when really it was there time to transcend mortally. So is it possible that for every life we save we are really taking away from 'God's' purpose? That he wanted that soul to join him and that science has prevented it? These are questions I've never heard any Christian or scientist discuss and THESE are the questions I seek answers to.

Your mention of "God's Will" is interesting, because by definition euthanasia and abortion are acts of man's will in defiance of natural order*, it is death on demand. If it were really "God's Will" that they die, then we as humans wouldn't be able to stop it.

*do not take this to mean we should abandon all medical practice and leave everything to nature, that is a different issue altogether (albeit stupid).