Zone1 The biggest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[Picaro]

I don't think Catholics of the revised edition agree with you now since Darwin

You've never read Darwin, so you wouldn't know what he actually said or what he believed; you're just parroting what somebody else claims he said. This why you don't understand a thing being said by others here. You're a cultist.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't think Catholics of the revised edition agree with you now since Darwin. But your comment is very useful in proving to modern catholics such as our Ding and Meriweather that the flock is still very divided.

No, the flock is not "divided". What you need to understand is that we all agree that God is the author of creation, that God is Creator. How he did it doesn't really matter.

Fwiw, they have moved on from believing that bible stories such as 'the big fish and Jonah' are not literally true. Have you moved on too? They don't dispute the records of the bones of our early ancesstors either.

I don't recall saying that the story of Jonah isn't literally true. It is not necessarily literally true, it works both ways whether he was in an actual fish or whether the big fish is a metaphor. Using a metaphor does not falsify any story.

 

[Meriweather]

Ironically, that puts me as an atheist closer to them and their beliefs than you. You're being left walking down the bible's outdated beaten path, kicking rocks.

I don't see it that way. You do not believe God was involved in creation at all, as Picaro and I believe God is--to this day--fully involved in creation.

 

[Donald H]

I don't see it that way. You do not believe God was involved in creation at all, as Picaro and I believe God is--to this day--fully involved in creation.

With due respect to your beliefs, this is not a question on creation vs. evolution. It's about the simple fact that our human ancestors' bones have been found in many locations and many times.

There could even be a 'creation' story that; supports those bones being early human!
I think you might be trying to walk over ground on which we've already found agreement.

Surely you're not going to go all the way back to the 'Adam and Eve' story with Picaro?
I've already heard explanations on how that can be true and doesn't contradict evolution. I've chosen to move along and at least not debate the question.

It's no different to me than the 'big fish and Jonah' story. I've chosen to accept your interpretation of the story as not being 'literally' true.

So now, are you going to accept human evolution from earlier forms of apelike creatures? Or are you going to reject Darwinian evolution completely? Or somewhere in between, with an explanation?

 

[Meriweather]

This why you don't understand a thing being said by others here.

So true.

 

[Meriweather]

Surely you're not going to go all the way back to the 'Adam and Eve' story with Picaro?

I've always been "back to the Adam and Eve story". It is where I always start, but I don't wander off into one day creation or evolutionary creation. This account isn't a science text.

So now, are you going to accept human evolution from earlier forms of apelike creatures? Or are you going to reject Darwinian evolution completely? Or somewhere in between, with an explanation?

If "explanations" interest you, you go for it, but it is not an aspect that interests me. I keep it simple. God is Creator and the steps He took in creation are unknown. Some people have interesting theories that may come close, but as far as even most scientists agree, we don't have the whole story.

History and philosophy are where my interests lie.

 

[Donald H]

No, the flock is not "divided". What you need to understand is that we all agree that God is the author of creation, that God is Creator. How he did it doesn't really matter.

I don't reject that as you have stated. But we both do know by now that we have agreed that some bible stories are not to be believed as 'literally' true. And now we have Picaro trying to open the can of worms by talking about specific examples that he wants to pursue.

I don't recall saying that the story of Jonah isn't literally true. It is not necessarily literally true, it works both ways whether he was in an actual fish or whether the big fish is a metaphor. Using a metaphor does not falsify any story.

Yes, that is your understanding on which we have no quarrel! Somehow in your opinion it works both ways. I don't think we need to chase that question down any further.
However, I can't come to your terms with the 'literal' man living in a whale. That's not a difference between us, it's just my personal belief.

And so I think we can now take this agreeable attitude to Darwinian evolution not necessarily contradicting 'Adam and Eve', in the modern Christian's mind. It works, because you have already made it work in our past discussions.

 

[Donald H]

You've never read Darwin, so you wouldn't know what he actually said or what he believed; you're just parroting what somebody else claims he said. This why you don't understand a thing being said by others here. You're a cultist.

I've read enough of 'The Origin of the Species' to be able to understand the elementary disagreements with which we're involved with here.

I think Meri and I have come closer to agreement on the relevant questions than you and she can ever be.

What do you believe about Jonah living in the belly of the big fish? I already know that you are rejecting human evolution!

Come along with us in good spirit, by listening, reading, and learning how atheists and modern Christians can agree.

The Catholic church has tailored it's modern belief system to suit that agreement with atheists.

And do ask Meri about how and where we have been able to find agreement!

You're going to find that Ding is in agreement on some of the issues too, although he's not ready to accept it openly.

 

[Meriweather]

However, I can't come to your terms with the 'literal' man living in a whale.

There was a sailor named James Bartley who died in 1909. You might be interested in that story.

 

[Donald H]

There was a sailor named James Bartley who died in 1909. You might be interested in that story.

Thanks, I didn't know the story. So I did a quick bit of research on the story and it's claim of being true.
I won't state my opinion on the story now, because I feel that it would be counter productive.

We've both long since found mutual ground on the fact that some of the bible stories are not to be believed to be 'literally' true and should not be read and interpreted as such.

For the sake of agreement on Picaro's position on bible stories, there's no doubt involved on Noah's Ark either, as Ken Ham owns an exact replica!
(Answers in Genesis?)

 

[Donald H]

I've always been "back to the Adam and Eve story". It is where I always start, but I don't wander off into one day creation or evolutionary creation. This account isn't a science text.

If "explanations" interest you, you go for it, but it is not an aspect that interests me. I keep it simple. God is Creator and the steps He took in creation are unknown. Some people have interesting theories that may come close, but as far as even most scientists agree, we don't have the whole story.

History and philosophy are where my interests lie.

You aren't forced to have the discussion and you can always leave the question hanging.
That question I've put to you in good faith is on whether you accept Darwinian evolution, or reject it?
It's possible in my opinion that your beliefs don't need to be 100% on either.

I don't expect that you would be firm on 'one day' creation, or the seven day alternative theory either. This is because I've long ago accepted your explanation as stated below: it can be either way.

Meri:

It is not necessarily literally true, it works both ways

 

[Donald H]

Meri, I think we've left Picaro in the dust, walking down the creation path kicking rocks.
Was he ever of good spirit enough to become a part of a polite and civil discussion?
I think it's safe to conclude that Ding never was!

 

[Donald H]

I don't see it that way. You do not believe God was involved in creation at all, as Picaro and I believe God is--to this day--fully involved in creation.

Sorry, I missed this comment.
I certainly don't believe that your god ever existed. Note that I said 'your', and that was purposeful for my own reasons, that you'r welcome to explore.

My comment to Picaro on being closer to your interpretations of the bible than yours an his, were related to just that!

Meri:

It is not necessarily literally true, it works both ways

With Picaro it seems to be that it can only be one way.