Old Earth
#41
This was a sticking point for me.  I could not justify the conflict between accepting Jesus as God is accurately recorded in the bible, but all that other old testament stuff is just there for the "stories".  In fact, from a non-believer standpoint, it was more difficult to believe the fantastical idea that Jesus is God, than any other thing in the bible.  I simply could not open myself up to believing that Jesus is God unless I took a deeper look into the bible as a whole, and why people believe it is true.  If you throw out the story of Adam and Eve, which frankly, doesn't make any sense if you try and throw in a gap of millions of years, then it doesn't make any sense to accept the resurrection, the immaculate conception, the incarnation, or the reason for mankind needed redemption.  None of that makes any sense from the standpoint of a non-believer, unless you're able to start opening your mind to the idea that the rest of the bible just might be true.

Think of how Jesus came to be in Mary's womb despite the fact that she had no exposure to a man, nor man's seed.  Nobody ever takes pains to try and scientifically prove that fact, or pick it apart and come up with some kind of freak asexual-conception scenario.  Even though we are talking about one divine being, suddenly appearing in Mary's womb, and with Genesis, we are talking about all of creation suddenly appearing, completely mature and ready to move forward.  The miracle is the same, something from nothingness.  So if you're going to believe the fantastic and completely unscientific idea that Jesus miraculously appeared from nothing in Mary's womb, why not believe that the appearance of the universe and all that is in it was achieved in a similar fashion?  Why not give the bible the benefit of the doubt, for Jesus said it was correct.  It might seem fantastical because of the way the earth moves now, and many atheistic imaginations have been trying to come up with non-God theories on the origins of the earth.  But this doesn't mean God could not have created the earth so quickly, and all of the magnetic fields and energies and as-yet-unknown forces could have easily confused our understanding about how to tell the age of things.
Reply
#42
(01-24-2011, 01:16 AM)James02 Wrote: If you are trying to convert someone, and belief in a young earth is a major sticking point, and if this is NOT REQUIRED, then it matters.


Ah--I see, so you're asking whether or not the belief in a young earth is required, then?  Of course, I'm sure you know that a convert must be made aware of and firmly believe in the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, and not reject any of the dogmas of the Church or infallible truths, and must subject himself to the Pontiff in order to be received in the Church.  As far as I am aware, the Church has not infallibly stated that one must believe the Earth is a certain age; the quote mentioned before in Denzinger 2121 from the Biblical Commission in 1909 refers to the "foundation" of contrary beliefs as being not solid ("In the negative"), and does not directly pertain to a definitive judgment on whether other estimates are correct or incorrect. 

I think the bigger sticking point in the situation you describe would perhaps be the person's antagonism towards correction: if a person firmly holds any belief that is not Divinely revealed as being equal in certitude as those truths which are Divinely revealed, then he is subject to error, as we only know Divinely revealed facts to be "absolute facts" at all.  I would say that the belief in a young Earth is NOT required for conversion.  If I am wrong on this, I will change my position, but I am not aware of any sacred truths regarding this.  I know there are many traditionalists who contend that geocentricism was infallibly defined and hold it as de fide, but this is not the position of the Church today as far as I can tell, and I do not think that heliocentrism is a heresy, as they do.
Reply
#43
I am an old earther.  And I believe that Adam and Eve were created out of mud 6500 years or so ago.  But I am not insisting on young earth.  If you believe in the young earth, that is fine.  And there are some arguments for it.

But belief in the young Earth is not required, from what Pope Pius XII wrote.  He didn't say for sure that the Earth was older than 6500 years old however.  

And I don't see how belief that God did other things before Adam and Eve would get rid of Adam and Eve.  He makes dinosaurs.  He makes galaxies.  He makes all sorts of wonders.  Then He wipes out the dinosaurs, starts up the Garden of Eden, and then creates Adam.
Reply
#44
(01-24-2011, 01:39 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: This was a sticking point for me.  I could not justify the conflict between accepting Jesus as God is accurately recorded in the bible, but all that other old testament stuff is just there for the "stories".  In fact, from a non-believer standpoint, it was more difficult to believe the fantastical idea that Jesus is God, than any other thing in the bible. ....

The miracle is the same, something from nothingness.  So if you're going to believe the fantastic and completely unscientific idea that Jesus miraculously appeared from nothing in Mary's womb, why not believe that the appearance of the universe and all that is in it was achieved in a similar fashion?  Why not give the bible the benefit of the doubt, for Jesus said it was correct.   It might seem fantastical because of the way the earth moves now, and many atheistic imaginations have been trying to come up with non-God theories on the origins of the earth.  But this doesn't mean God could not have created the earth so quickly, and all of the magnetic fields and energies and as-yet-unknown forces could have easily confused our understanding about how to tell the age of things.

Well said---I understand.  I guess the distinction that I would make between the Old and New Testament records is that in the NT, the authors were people who were actually there, directly witnessing the events of Jesus' life and death and resurrection, and so they are "more" historical than accounts in the OT, which are of course equally inspired by the Holy Ghost, but which are revelations.  It is sort of like John in Apocalypse: obviously, the book is divinely inspired, but is everything literal as we would take it "literally"?  No, we know that it is highly symbolic.  Saint John was being shown and revealed information for events that he was not "actually" witnessing (though I do believe he was witnessing them, just not in the sense of "witness" like the way he witnessed Jesus with his human eyes), so are his words literal or deeper?  Could the same be said of the revelations to the OT authors, as they do NOT claim to have personally witnessed the events of the Garden and other things, while they most certainly did witness other events?  
Reply
#45
Most dinosaurs died in the flood, and the few that was left died during the first few centuries after the flood. There are still dinosaurs who have survived till this day, i.e. - lochness and other lake creature sightings around the world.

The Earth is only about 6,000 to 7,000 years old,...as you move away from the center of the Universe(which is Earth), then time expansion begins which means that time elsewhere is much longer in length than our time. This scientific theory explains why the Galaxies furthest from Earth are super-galaxies which would take billions to trillions of years to form. We on Earth are indeed at the center of the Universe and at the very bottom of the Gravity well of the Universe which is why our space and time is shorter than the space and time further away from us. This theory works perfectly with Einstein's theory of relativity.
Reply
#46
God made the dinosaurs cause he knew that the Jurassic Park soundtrack had to be made in order to lift man's hearts to the transcendentals.
Reply
#47
(01-24-2011, 04:27 PM)faith3faith Wrote: Most dinosaurs died in the flood, and the few that was left died during the first few centuries after the flood. There are still dinosaurs who have survived till this day, i.e. - lochness and other lake creature sightings around the world.

The Earth is only about 6,000 to 7,000 years old,...as you move away from the center of the Universe(which is Earth), then time expansion begins which means that time elsewhere is much longer in length than our time. This scientific theory explains why the Galaxies furthest from Earth are super-galaxies which would take billions to trillions of years to form. We on Earth are indeed at the center of the Universe and at the very bottom of the Gravity well of the Universe which is why our space and time is shorter than the space and time further away from us. This theory works perfectly with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't think you know as much as you think  you do about Einstein's relativity if you say that theory works "perfectly" with it...
Reply
#48
I reject that time changes or that space is expanding.
Reply
#49
(01-24-2011, 05:51 PM)James02 Wrote: I reject that time changes or that space is expanding.

The expansion of space is already accepted by most scientists. Also, it has already been proven in scientific tests using Atomic clocks that "TIME" itself can be different at different points in this Universe.
Reply
#50
(01-25-2011, 12:25 AM)faith3faith Wrote:
(01-24-2011, 05:51 PM)James02 Wrote: I reject that time changes or that space is expanding.

The expansion of space is already accepted by most scientists. Also, it has already been proven in scientific tests using Atomic clocks that "TIME" itself can be different at different points in this Universe.

The fact that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe is already accepted by all scientists.  You can't use a bandwagon appeal to authority for one part of your ideas while another goes against the same bandwagon appeal.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)