Evolution and the Gospel

Here we might find some more support for the RC posts.

The RCC sponsors - teaches - evolution to it's people as "fact".

But what about other faiths? I am guessing many non-RC groups do this as well, so feel free to join with the RC posts on that point.

But what does that do to the Gospel?

Can you really "cut and paste" God's Word?

Is it safe to go with the mythologies of evolutionism or stick with the Gospel?

What about the fall of man?

If God "created" in the form of death, starvation, caranage, savage killing - how did "Adam fall from THAT"?

Even Atheist evolutionists "Admit" that THIS day is a GREAT STEP UP from that carnage.

The practical vies is that Man "climbed out of the MUCK of that CREATION".

Not that man FELL from such a high lofty state.

"And as Adam squatted on his cave floor bashing in his share of monkey brains - mommy hominid looked on in approval. And then sudddddenly - Adam had - A BAD THOUGHT - so now God the Son must die for all humanity to save them from hell".

As Richard Dawkins noted - the Christianized-view of Evolutionism - is nonsense to the evolutionist - AND to the Bible believing Christian.

For those who trust God "For in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the Earth the SEA and ALL that is in them and rested the Seventy day (yom)".Exodus 20:11.

It is the DETAILS of the Genesis 1-2 account that are appealed to in God's Law and Gospel and Salvation message.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the thread "How are infants saved" we learned from RC Historian Thomas Bokenkotter that the RCC compromised with the World and thus brought in practices supporting infant baptism.

Can it be "surprising" then that in the 20th century - the RCC "does it again" with the atheist views on Creation and the origin of mankind?

In the "Former case" the noble goal was to reach out to more pagans, in the latter case the "noble goal" was to "protect" the Bible from Science AS IF science had ever proven the mythologies of evolutionism, abiogenesis (New Spontaneous generation) or had refuted Entropy as a fact in our solar system that could be applied to Biology.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As has been my consistent approach on this board - I quote CATHOLIC sources when showing RC views.

Thank you Carson for "one more" to add to the list.

Here is the quote from YOUR source that is added to my file.

In fact (as a Franciscan student recently affirmed on a purely RC message board) you "would be laughed right out of class if you came in here supposing that God REALLY created the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them in SIX days as scripture states". I for one - believe him.

Here is a quote from him (of course it starts out with the obligatory RC response "you don't know what Catholics teach")

In Christ,

Bob

 

And so (if the smoke screen is quite through) we DO SEE from CAtholic sources THEMSELVES - that the RCC is actively promoting evolutionism NOT ONLY in its science courses BUT ALSO to its seminarians.

So "Now that we know we can't obfuscate that point" can we get on with the main topic - HOW are you able to blend those two ideas? What have you done to the Gospel in taking that approach?

In Christ,

Bob

 

What still "continues to amaze me" is that MY practice of consistently quoting RC sources - is condemned by RC posters - withOUT impeaching my pro-RC sources or the quotes they give. But the VERY POINTS the RC members here object to are the VERY ONES promoted in the pro-RC source Quotes.

How many others on this board are giving you YOUR OWN quotes as the source for "proof" of your problem?

And yet....

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that others besides the RCC endorse the errors of theistic evolution and I also agree that there are some notable RC members that have made significant contributions to the YEC argument.

My point is that the RCC "officially" teaches Evolution in all its institutions - NOT just in its science classrooms BUT ALSO (as my quotes show) in its seminaries.

So the question is - what does that do to their "Gospel".

As you point out we could go to smaller Christian groups and perhaps find them also teaching this in their science classes AND seminaries as "approved" to the extent we find it in the statements above - but in those small groups that would ALSO promote this "instiution-wide" within their denomination - we doubtless would be dealing with a smaller global group, one that is probably not well represented on this message board. Since I am not sure there are enough of them on this board to put up a good defense for themselves, I would prefer to have them simply join the RCC argument (in favor of it) in responding to the point regarding the damage done to the Gospel by evolutionism's mythologies.

Since I "know" we have some RC's here that are affiliated with the Seminary and others that may be well informed about the pro-evolutionism statements as quoted above - I am hoping they will present a vigorous defense of that view and how they salvage some vestige of the gospel while clinging to evolutionism.

BTW - have you noticed that the Evolution vs Creation board does not seem to be allowing posts at the moment?

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis."

"In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)."


"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."


Pope John Paul II
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
22 October 1996

 

Kathryn's recent post makes this point again - showing that since we don't want science coming from the bible - the best thing is to let science tell us about "origins" and ignore the point when God addresses the same subject "unscientifically". The "proble" is that God gave us a Bible that "weaves" the fabric of the Gospel with the story of creation, infusing both the Law and the Gospel with "the very details" that are supposedly "so unreliable".

In Christ,

Bob