Poll: The creation narrative in Genesis is scientifically and historically accurate down to the last detail, including 6 literal 24-hour days. Yes or No?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
20
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
75
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
(05-20-2011, 05:21 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-20-2011, 11:41 AM)Norbert Wrote:
(05-20-2011, 06:30 AM)Nic Wrote:
(05-17-2011, 11:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(05-17-2011, 10:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-17-2011, 06:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The poll was to find out what percentage of traditional Catholics required that degree of literalness. The poll results say only a few more than 1/4 personally interpret it that literally, and fewer than 1/5 think that it's absolutely necessary. 59 out of 81 (73%) agree with you and me. You can be Catholic without commiting intellectual suicide (phrase borrowed from JayneK).

Yes, because polls determine truth.

Sharp.

???          I never claimed that polls determine truth. But you don't determine truth either. I will continue to use all methods at my disposal (including science and the brain that God gave me) to discover the truth. If you choose to remain "wilfully ignorant of God's creation", as someone put it in another thread, that's your business. My search for truth is my business. I don't need your approval.

That poll just shows two things:

1)  There are a lot of uneducated Catholics out there concerning true science and the mounting evidence that destroys evolutionary theory
2)  There are a lot of cowards out there who jump on evolution because the "scientific community" says its fact, thus bastardazing a hybrid-theory called "theistic" evolutionism, which your true evolutionist paragons mock.

Just do some research into the subject and see the truth behind it all.  Reading is tech.

M:TG for the win.

Wow, I cannot believe someone on this forum caught that!  Cool.   :)
:cheers:
Reply
(05-20-2011, 08:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(05-20-2011, 08:16 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-20-2011, 07:38 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: I ask again: Did God create you -- exactly as you are now -- "from nothing"? Or did you start out as a pair of single cells, and then become an embryo, and then a baby, and then gradually grow into what you are now? If He can create you in that manner, why not the world as a whole? An ape is a lot more like an adult human than an embryo is.

"Give ear, ye islands, and hearken, ye people from afar. The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother he hath been mindful of my name."

Doesn't God know exactly what we shall become in our development. An embryo of a man is a man; not an ape. We cannot think that we evolve from things because of similarity. Man is similar to dolphins, pigs and other creatures in genetics. So, could we not have evolved form them because of similarity. God did create me out of nothing. But God in His omniscience knows beforehand what motion and development will form me to be. I am not denying that God shapes things in His creation, but to say that man was once an ape and then happened to be chosen to be gifted with intellect is an absolute denial of the nature of man, and the authority of scripture and its holy interpreter (the Church), not to mention modernistic.

But Scripture said we are made from dust.  So man was once dust and this does not deny the nature of man.  By "dust" I think it's okay to read "simple matter" or "unformed stuff" -- God created our form from no form.  But whether he used evolution to do this I think is an open question, with no real moral or spiritual impact either way -- just a scientific mechanism.


and it says to dust we shall return so does that mean it started from simple matter evolved over time became man and then were gonna devolve over time and go back to being dust or simple matter


if we came from dust by a certain process why wouldnt we return to dust by the opposite of that process
Reply
(05-20-2011, 09:25 PM)Gorgondie Wrote: if we came from dust by a certain process why wouldnt we return to dust by the opposite of that process

Well, perhaps once the worms evacuate us from their system, we must evolve from worm poop to mulch, then the mulch turns into dust.........I may have missed a few evolutionary processes in there somewhere. lol
Reply
(05-21-2011, 10:47 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-20-2011, 09:25 PM)Gorgondie Wrote: if we came from dust by a certain process why wouldnt we return to dust by the opposite of that process

Well, perhaps once the worms evacuate us from their system, we must evolve from worm poop to mulch, then the mulch turns into dust.........I may have missed a few evolutionary processes in there somewhere. lol

Ah yes! you found it, the missing link. It was worm poop the whole time. I understand it now.
Reply
I voted that you have to believe this.

But, I am kind of mystified by what some think a literal day is?

We're talking in the realm of the supernatural folks.

It's the way God wanted us to understand it. Whether it is "literal" I personally don't give a hoot.

Here's today's Epistle. Should we argue this one too? Is God literally the Father of Lights? Do you dare shadow or make alteration based on the Times? I guess some do.

[17] Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.

[18] For of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creatures.

[19] You know, my dearest brethren. And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. [20] For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.

[21] Wherefore casting away all uncleanness, and abundance of naughtiness, with meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Reply
Weird double post here.

I was trying to respond to Grasshopper in the thread started by Trad Cath Youth on Chesterton and got a message that I had to log out and back in for verification. Then I noticed this here. Like I was quoting my last post in this thread. Seems to be a ghost on the board as I'm not that vain as to quote myself in a pathetic sort of bump.
Reply
I can't believe that only 18 (myself included) voted yes.

Bump to have more people vote.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)