The Pope announced that evolution and the big bang are fact and that God is not a wizard.
I think it's pretty interesting I haven't seen much ado about it since the week the story broke in the news. Is that because Catholics in general had already conceded that the creation story was false?
Seriously? Did he even consider the implications of it? It negates biblical faith. Period.
If there is no first man to create original sin, then what is the whole story about? Why would God need to send his son to die for us if we are just the way he created us, through evolution, to be. It means God created us all bound for hell and it wasn't the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
That doesn't jive with the Biblical story at all. In fact it's completely opposite (with the exception of a few passages which say God created people for hell, deceived them or gave them bad laws.)
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy from Jesus to God through Adam. Does the Pope consider that false as well?
It's not as if Adam and Eve are confined to the creation account. They are mentioned and referenced throughout the bible.
If other authors of the Bible believed their story to be true, could they possibly have been inspired by God?
This is exactly how I came to a position of unbelief.
Part of me thinks this could spur a division in the catholic church and even an exodus from the faith. This may open the eyes of many that while existence itself is an argument for god, it does not necessitate the God of the Bible.
I have my doubts about that happening though. So much can be justified through interpretation and faith that those that believe can make up the gaps themselves to fabricate a cohesive vision of a Bible that is still "God breathed."
That's why it's so hard to break the circular reasoning of the Bible verifying the Bible through the interpretation of the reader.
For me it took overwhelming evidence to break free of it. The creation story proving false, or at best a lie, started me down a path of discovery of truth, but it was only the beginning. As people become better informed, less will believe in the superstitions of past civilizations, because they will be knowledgeable enough. I could have known all this during high school if I hadn't believed the lies of prominent creationists at the time.
I have to applaud Pope Francis for recognizing truth, even if just partially, in spite of theology. I know how tough that battle is, trying to reconcile reality with faith. The two will always be at odds.
Our imaginations are capable of nearly anything. It brings us to such wondrous heights and such ugly depths. It is egregious by both definitions.
The Bible and evolution in the end are not compatible, regardless of the theological gymnastics of the imaginative mind. So if one is true, the other is false.
I think it's pretty interesting I haven't seen much ado about it since the week the story broke in the news. Is that because Catholics in general had already conceded that the creation story was false?
Seriously? Did he even consider the implications of it? It negates biblical faith. Period.
If there is no first man to create original sin, then what is the whole story about? Why would God need to send his son to die for us if we are just the way he created us, through evolution, to be. It means God created us all bound for hell and it wasn't the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
That doesn't jive with the Biblical story at all. In fact it's completely opposite (with the exception of a few passages which say God created people for hell, deceived them or gave them bad laws.)
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy from Jesus to God through Adam. Does the Pope consider that false as well?
It's not as if Adam and Eve are confined to the creation account. They are mentioned and referenced throughout the bible.
If other authors of the Bible believed their story to be true, could they possibly have been inspired by God?
This is exactly how I came to a position of unbelief.
Part of me thinks this could spur a division in the catholic church and even an exodus from the faith. This may open the eyes of many that while existence itself is an argument for god, it does not necessitate the God of the Bible.
I have my doubts about that happening though. So much can be justified through interpretation and faith that those that believe can make up the gaps themselves to fabricate a cohesive vision of a Bible that is still "God breathed."
That's why it's so hard to break the circular reasoning of the Bible verifying the Bible through the interpretation of the reader.
For me it took overwhelming evidence to break free of it. The creation story proving false, or at best a lie, started me down a path of discovery of truth, but it was only the beginning. As people become better informed, less will believe in the superstitions of past civilizations, because they will be knowledgeable enough. I could have known all this during high school if I hadn't believed the lies of prominent creationists at the time.
I have to applaud Pope Francis for recognizing truth, even if just partially, in spite of theology. I know how tough that battle is, trying to reconcile reality with faith. The two will always be at odds.
Our imaginations are capable of nearly anything. It brings us to such wondrous heights and such ugly depths. It is egregious by both definitions.
The Bible and evolution in the end are not compatible, regardless of the theological gymnastics of the imaginative mind. So if one is true, the other is false.
CE. 1st. What makes you think that Catholicism represent true Christianity? 2nd, what did Jesus say about Adam and Eve or anything else in Genesis for that matter? See Mark 10:5-9. 3rd, why do you think Martin Luther left the Roman Catholic Church?
ReplyDeleteI don't think catholicism represents "true christianity." (I think most christians would say Jesus is the only true christian) Doesn't that passage of Mark contain Jesus referencing Genesis? ML left the church for many reasons. One might say he had 99 problems but faith ain't one. :-) Catholicism is a faith and the pope is it's head representative as far as i know. I am only pointing out what he said a reviewing the implications of the incompatability of the two ideas.
Delete