Evolution is an illusion at best, a delusion for those who see no alternatives. It is all about creation ultimately, grounded in love, but that reality is distorted by ignorance, the outcome of sin.
So, are you essentially saying that God is killing a child through a miscarriage because people in the past sinned? same with serious birth defects? What kind of loving God would do such things?
Instead I propose a paradigm shift, namely that maybe God purposely did not complete Creation so as to make it ours to fix and to take care of. If God made all to perfection, then how could we as God’s creation sin? We would even have to blame the Fall on God as well to fit your paradigm.
An excellent book that covers this is “The Image of the Unseen God: Catholicity, Science, and Our Living Understanding of God” by Fr. Hosinski C.S.C.
How did you derive such nonsense? You’ve mentioned this before, and I responded, obviously with no effect. What’s the point of doing so now? You may wish to contemplate the church’s teachings on pain and suffering, original sin and such matters.
Instead of an ad hominem attack, why don’t you actually deal with what’s supposedly theologically wrong in what I wrote? I taught theology for many years, so I have done the research through multiple sources, including numerous Catholic and Jewish sources, on this plus many other matters.
So, please answer this question: “Why would God have a baby miscarried or borne with serious birth defects on the basis of previous generations back to Adam?” , and please try and deal with this without throwing insults around like they’re candy. And, btw, “pain & suffering” hardly helps a child that’s miscarried or borne with a serious birth defect.
It’s not an ad hominem attack to tell you that are making things up.
Read what I said and then what you think I said.
I will help you. Among much more you will find, at the beginning of this line of discussion:
To which you replied:
Since I have answered your question before, I believe you to be disingenuous. I don’t like the game you seem to be playing, and there is no point in my replying. if you truly want to know about why suffering exists, read the Catechism at the very least, if not the countless thoughts of learned people throughout history.
Well, first of all I didn’t make it up and, secondly, if you’d get over yourself you might learn that there are others out there who have opinions that are well thought out and maybe even correct. As it is, you have avoided answer my most basic question for a second time, so I’m just going to move on.
The Bible does not need to discuss the mechanics of creation, … It’s just not important to the question of God’s sovereignty and human salvation.
Actually it’s absolutely vital for human salvation. Jesus’ death on the cross was His substitutionary sacrifice to satisfy the curse of death under which all of Adam’s descendants were born because of his Original Sin. There was no death and therefore there were no fossils before Adam’s sin. To believe so, takes away from who Jesus is and what He did for us and therefore unbelief in Him as Saviour restoring our life. Sin is the cause of death. God created Adam and Eve as adults in a perfect Paradise of pleasure not in a land of survival of the fittest and death to the faulty creatures created by a faulty god.
And it should.
The curse of death that Jesus took away is not the physical death of the body. That is obvious because people continue to die physically, even if they are faithful followers of Jesus. The salvation brought through Jesus is the promise of the resurrection. Likewise, the statement “Sin is the cause of death” is causal in God’s reckoning, which is from outside of time. This sort of cause and effect relationship need not follow our time-constrained view where the cause must happen before the effect. It is possible that God, through His omniscience, saw the failure of Adam, and therefore allowed death to occur millions of year before Adam.
If you really want to prove that all fossils are post-human, here is what to do: Find me as fossil of a T-Rex with the fossilized remains of a human in its belly.
There’ve been opinions expressed that Mary did not die, that she was assumed into heaven. The Magisterial teaching is that although born without sin, she chose to die, as did Jesus, for the salvation of the world.
There are two people who evidently never died:
2 Kings 2:11 - Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Genesis 5:23–24: Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.
Seems to me that being taken by God is synonymous with death, but Enoch is said to have never died.
And then there’s Melchizedek:
Hebrews 7:1-3: This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham apportioned to him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness.” Then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
And, there’s John, where we can’t be sure:
John 21:20-23: Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”
So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours?”
Also, about the last days, we are told:
1Thessalonians 4:13-18: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Maybe this thread will never die.
Of that I am certain.
No, it will just be reborn under a different name.
Actually, what I think happens is that the overall desire to discuss evolution is its own entity which reproduces by spores. That would explain why 5 new threads in the genre appear at the same time with similar characteristics. That also means this thread might die, but that the spores could continue the species, with varying adaptations determining which threads thrive and which ones die.
I tend to agree with this extract from your Ratzinger source and it doesn’t seem to contradict my view that Genesis describes literal history once Adam and Eve enter the picture.
Ratzinger here is referring to how fundamentists tend to interpret the Genesis “six days” of creation literally - he isn’t referring to what Genesis describes after Adam.
Furthermore, since the theme of the Scriptures is the relationship between God and man, it doesn’t matter that the writer of Genesis used an “out-of-date cosmology” to describe what happened leading up to Adam . What matters is what happened from Adam on … which is why from Adam on, Genesis describes literal history.
Until the athesit fairy tale of evolution came along, almost every believer in the several thousand years since Genesis was written interpreted it as literal history. The Martyrology of the Catholic Church (written in much saner times) certainly considers Genesis to be literal history.
Science suggests the “six days” of creation are not literal, but I see no reason to suspect the remainder of Genesis is not literal history.
So Adam and Eve’s disobedience is all God’s fault?
Evolution is the atheist delusion which has managed to contaminate, not merely the malleable minds of the masses, but many of the Church hiearchy as well.
I lost ny respect for National Geographic a long time ago.
Luckily we have those like yourself who have the knowledge and intelligence to lead the masses, and the church, out of these deluded times.
I don’t see a reason to keep bringing evolution into the conversation, these are entirely separate entities.
You may not see any reason to believe Genesis isn’t real, literal history, but I have many very good reasons for believing that is not the case. It’s the place where the modern academic community has settled, and it’s where i’ll Settle as well.
If you’d like to know why I believe what I do, I’m more than happy to share, because I have a lot of ammo in that regard, but I won’t waste your time if you don’t want to or aren’t in a place to hear and grapple with it. Which is fine with me, I believe myself and modern scholars to be correct, and I’m content knowing how confident I am, I don’t need to have it reaffirmed. Hopefully you’ll consider and we can have a good scholarly conversation