Religion

[Hautian Domer]

For the Catholics of IrishEnvy, a few questions that I’d appreciate your input on:

- Do you regularly fulfill your Sunday obligation?

- Do you always receive communion — even without reconciliation or a grey area of mortal sin?

- Do you fast for an hour before receiving communion?

- Do you attend a Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass? If the latter, are you fearful or concerned that it may go away in its entirety?

- Do you accept all of the Church’s teaching (example: on contraception/rhythm method, abortion, homosexuality, and so on)? Are there any you disagree with or refuse to accept?

 

[ulukinatme]

For the Catholics of IrishEnvy, a few questions that I’d appreciate your input on:

- Do you regularly fulfill your Sunday obligation?

- Do you always receive communion — even without reconciliation or a grey area of mortal sin?

- Do you fast for an hour before receiving communion?

- Do you attend a Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass? If the latter, are you fearful or concerned that it may go away in its entirety?

- Do you accept all of the Church’s teaching (example: on contraception/rhythm method, abortion, homosexuality, and so on)? Are there any you disagree with or refuse to accept?

I've been rather lax in my Sunday obligations as of late. I tend to still receive communion when I do go, although I haven't had confession in a long time (No mortal sins committed in-between).

I generally fast an hour before receiving communion, but not always after.

New mass, although I'm still pissed about the rewrite to several portions of it that occurred around 2007, in particular the Nicene Creed. The new translations are bogus and made no sense in practice.

I accept most of the Church's teachings, however there's a few I have sticking points on. For one, I don't observe the practice of fasting from meat during Lent. It's a practice that doesn't make sense in the West. In Biblical times they fasted from meats because they were seen as a luxury in that region, which is why fish as their staple was allowed to be eaten. On the flip side in the West we have chicken and beef as a staple while fish is seen as a luxury. For that reason I see no point in following that tradition here. Theres a few other teachings I don't necessarily agree with. For instance, I believe there's something about babies that pass early and are unbaptized going to Limbo. While I believe in baptism, I can't believe that a child being called home early wouldn't go to God.

 

[Sea Turtle]

I've been rather lax in my Sunday obligations as of late. I tend to still receive communion when I do go, although I haven't had confession in a long time (No mortal sins committed in-between).

I generally fast an hour before receiving communion, but not always after.

New mass, although I'm still pissed about the rewrite to several portions of it that occurred around 2007, in particular the Nicene Creed. The new translations are bogus and made no sense in practice.

I accept most of the Church's teachings, however there's a few I have sticking points on. For one, I don't observe the practice of fasting from meat during Lent. It's a practice that doesn't make sense in the West. In Biblical times they fasted from meats because they were seen as a luxury in that region, which is why fish as their staple was allowed to be eaten. On the flip side in the West we have chicken and beef as a staple while fish is seen as a luxury. For that reason I see no point in following that tradition here. Theres a few other teachings I don't necessarily agree with. For instance, I believe there's something about babies that pass early and are unbaptized going to Limbo. While I believe in baptism, I can't believe that a child being called home early wouldn't go to God.

All babies go to Heaven. The Bible tells us this through David stating that he will see his dead newborn in Heaven.

 

[TNUtoNotreDame]

For the Catholics of IrishEnvy, a few questions that I’d appreciate your input on:

- Do you regularly fulfill your Sunday obligation?

yes

- Do you always receive communion — even without reconciliation or a grey area of mortal sin?

no

- Do you fast for an hour before receiving communion?

Yes

- Do you attend a Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass? If the latter, are you fearful or concerned that it may go away in its entirety?

Traditional

- Do you accept all of the Church’s teaching (example: on contraception/rhythm method, abortion, homosexuality, and so on)? Are there any you disagree with or refuse to accept?

All of them otherwise I would not have entered the church.

 

[Valpodoc85]

Converted Methodist. Married a catholic girl. As to the church teaching, I can’t agree with that which I don’t understand. Generally speaking when I approach church doctrine I disagree with I strive to understand the position and its historic context. With this coming understanding

 

[Irish du Nord]

Notre Dame to welcome National Eucharistic Pilgrimage to campus, premiere new musical

The University of Notre Dame will serve as a host site for Catholic pilgrims on Friday (July 5) as they journey to Indianapolis, Indiana, for the Nation...

t.co

National Eucharistic Procession stopping at ND today

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations and so dates get misconstrued?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

 

[Sea Turtle]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

There are some, such as myself, who believe that Adam and Eve were far earlier than what most believe. The genealogy of the Old Testament is legit but it leaves out the females in the line. Some take it even further and believe only the heads of the clan were mentioned.

The flood obviously happened. The evidence is there. As Noah's offspring continued to multiply and spread throughout the world, the flood story got changed to fit each culture imo.

 

[Irish#1]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations and so dates get misconstrued?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

That is the great conundrum that I find myself thinking about every once in a while.

 

[CANONIZEFATHERSORIN]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations and so dates get misconstrued?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

Evolution being a fact is literally dogma of the catholic church. Young earth creationism is a fringe belief of certain protestant sects

 

[NDpendent]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations and so dates get misconstrued?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

This is a great question and you aren't the first and won't be the last to ask this. Fr. Mike Schmidt did a great job explaining this and I will try to find the video for you but the just of what he said was the Bible is meant to show the timeline of salvation history and the why, not so much a timeline of when and how.

As for Adam and Eve and the flood, I read a book called The Jesuit Relations of North America and I thought it was very interesting when they asked the Native Americans is Quebec what they believed the origin of man came from and the NAs said that there was a husband and wife who resided in the heavens. Her husband got sick and there was a tree that they were forbidden to eat from but she dreamt that the fruit of the tree would cure her husband. She cut the tree down and feed the fruit to her husband. After that she was banished from heaven and put on an island. They further stated that they had two boys that quarrelled with each other and the one murdered they other. They also talked about a great flood. These stories would have been orally passed down for hundreds of generations so obviously the story got distorted over the years but I thought it was crazy how similar it is to the story of Adam and Eve. Sorry for the off topic (a little) story

 

[CANONIZEFATHERSORIN]

Parts of evolution are considered a fact, the Church doesn't accept all of it.

Fine but the church most emphatically rejects biblically literalist YEC interpretations, which was what the guy was so worried about

 

[ulukinatme]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations and so dates get misconstrued?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

I never get caught up in the dating personally. You're talking about a text, the Bible, which was regurgitated by word of mouth for generations until it was finally put down on paper. Notations for numbers didn't begin till around 5000 BC, which would likely predate Genesis. When the Bible says "On the first day, God created Light" this could be a rough translation, and we have no idea how long a day is to God, what is time to an immortal? All that predates man's creation, so that creation before man would have to be passed down from God if at all. The 5th day, when God made fish and flying creatures, this could have been millions of years ago and could have aligned with dinosaurs.

This is just my personal thoughts on the topic, I don't recall what the church's official stance is.

 

[Old Man Mike]

During my 84 years as a Catholic AND an academic AND a scientist, I've had a lot of time to study theology. I also had a best friend who was a priest and a former ND roommate who was also a priest. I'm about as certain of the following as I can be.

GOD is a Lover and doesn't give a snit about most of these fussed-over concepts. If you ever let fussing over speculative details including cosmic pronouncements get in the way of your personal relationship with The Spirit and consequent doing the right Samaritan thing for your neighbor, you're really screwed up. Now to the biblical baloney as I and other theologians have quietly called it:

Consensus Church theology since the 19th century at the least, has rejected the concept of literally interpreting Biblical stories and particularly things like one finds in Genesis. (The sequence {days} of the creation events are, by the way stunningly intuitive, but not literal --- even the word "day" is the one which means an ERA not a solar day.) Carbon dating and all scientifically-determined cosmic evolutionary discoveries are just fine, and The Church has said so repeatedly throughout the 20th century. The Church, and myself, has always maintained that materialist reductionism might be fine for boneheaded close-minded science pursuers, but that this misses over half of reality and that there is a spiritual side, untouched by this "scientism." The main elements of this spiritual side are GOD, heavenly afterlife, free will, AND the installation of the individual soul by GOD for each one of us. Adam and Eve and The Garden manifest a spiritual story meant to be meditated upon for one's spiritual growth and wisdom. Whenever the "first" free-willing fully conscious humans came to be, who knows? It was some time in evolutionary past when GOD decided that the evolved physical vessel was sufficient to house the free-willing decision-making-for-right-and-wrong (Good vs Evil, knowledge of). Fussing about this is nonsense, beyond our data and understanding, and a dangerous-to-faith waste of time. ... as an aside, no worldwide flood happened requiring Noah to build a too-small-to-carry-all-the-animals --- which literally taken would require the dinosaurs to be on board too. The Genesis flood story comes via the Abrahamic emigrants from their Mesopotamian homeland which had several versions of it. The one that got stuck into the Bible is another case of a Jewish culture story which however has a Great spiritual message about caring for the Earth --- the so-called Rainbow Promise/covenant from GOD.

Can you find priests even the occasional bishop who is a theological ignoramus, unstudied in either science or Church 20th/21st century Vatican science pronouncements who will dumbly claim certain "literally-interpreted" untruths? Sure, The Church is a very big tent. Some morons --- even positionally-advanced ones --- live in it. The Vatican is usually liberal about not slapping them down unless they get way out of hand and start scandalizing the greater organization seriously. Since Darwin began really swaying the science community in mid-19th century, our Church reassessed a bunch of things, not wanting to repeat Galileo. Our Catholic scientists accepted the science while insisting on the status of the spiritual. The non-literal interpretation of biblical stories of the Old Testament had already been in full force since the Newtonian revolution absolutely nailed down Earths actual physical place in the universe. Our theologians were and are not uneducated fools.

Relax my friends. We are fully in resonance with proper scientific discovery. We "merely" insist upon a VERY important spiritual side of God's Creation.

 

[Terry Jillery]

During my 84 years as a Catholic AND an academic AND a scientist, I've had a lot of time to study theology. I also had a best friend who was a priest and a former ND roommate who was also a priest. I'm about as certain of the following as I can be.

GOD is a Lover and doesn't give a snit about most of these fussed-over concepts. If you ever let fussing over speculative details including cosmic pronouncements get in the way of your personal relationship with The Spirit and consequent doing the right Samaritan thing for your neighbor, you're really screwed up. Now to the biblical baloney as I and other theologians have quietly called it:

Consensus Church theology since the 19th century at the least, has rejected the concept of literally interpreting Biblical stories and particularly things like one finds in Genesis. (The sequence {days} of the creation events are, by the way stunningly intuitive, but not literal --- even the word "day" is the one which means an ERA not a solar day.) Carbon dating and all scientifically-determined cosmic evolutionary discoveries are just fine, and The Church has said so repeatedly throughout the 20th century. The Church, and myself, has always maintained that materialist reductionism might be fine for boneheaded close-minded science pursuers, but that this misses over half of reality and that there is a spiritual side, untouched by this "scientism." The main elements of this spiritual side are GOD, heavenly afterlife, free will, AND the installation of the individual soul by GOD for each one of us. Adam and Eve and The Garden manifest a spiritual story meant to be meditated upon for one's spiritual growth and wisdom. Whenever the "first" free-willing fully conscious humans came to be, who knows? It was some time in evolutionary past when GOD decided that the evolved physical vessel was sufficient to house the free-willing decision-making-for-right-and-wrong (Good vs Evil, knowledge of). Fussing about this is nonsense, beyond our data and understanding, and a dangerous-to-faith waste of time. ... as an aside, no worldwide flood happened requiring Noah to build a too-small-to-carry-all-the-animals --- which literally taken would require the dinosaurs to be on board too. The Genesis flood story comes via the Abrahamic emigrants from their Mesopotamian homeland which had several versions of it. The one that got stuck into the Bible is another case of a Jewish culture story which however has a Great spiritual message about caring for the Earth --- the so-called Rainbow Promise/covenant from GOD.

Can you find priests even the occasional bishop who is a theological ignoramus, unstudied in either science or Church 20th/21st century Vatican science pronouncements who will dumbly claim certain "literally-interpreted" untruths? Sure, The Church is a very big tent. Some morons --- even positionally-advanced ones --- live in it. The Vatican is usually liberal about not slapping them down unless they get way out of hand and start scandalizing the greater organization seriously. Since Darwin began really swaying the science community in mid-19th century, our Church reassessed a bunch of things, not wanting to repeat Galileo. Our Catholic scientists accepted the science while insisting on the status of the spiritual. The non-literal interpretation of biblical stories of the Old Testament had already been in full force since the Newtonian revolution absolutely nailed down Earths actual physical place in the universe. Our theologians were and are not uneducated fools.

Relax my friends. We are fully in resonance with proper scientific discovery. We "merely" insist upon a VERY important spiritual side of God's Creation.

The Pope said to choose the better of two evils in the election, between abortion, which he called murder, and not letting in migrants, which he said is a sin. Which do you think is the lesser evil?

 

[domer13]

So I just began my Catholic journey by starting RCIA classes at our church. I was raised in a Protestant household and later married into a Catholic family. My kids are baptized Catholic. Throughout much of my teenage years and twenties, I considered myself to be an Agnostic Theist. I always believed in God, but I struggled with specific organized religions. Admittedly, this is largely due to immense ignorance and my inability to just blindly dive in to something as serious as religion without fully understanding what it was I was joining. So far, I've found these classes to be very enlightening and I'm happy with the decision I've made. I do have a very broad question (something perhaps the class will cover, but I'm impatient)...

Congratulations for beginning your journey! Prayers to you, and I hope you keep the questions coming. I will offer how I think about the matter (not speaking for the Church or other believers (or non-believers!)).

Questions about what Catholics believe are interesting, because there is a difference between

1. what the Church teaches as "true and therefore must be believed" (God as Trinity, Jesus as God, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mary as Immaculate Conception, etc); and
2. what has (or has not) been believed by Catholics/the Church/Popes over the last 2000-odd years, but are not necessarily part of the deposit of faith (things like whether the Genesis accounts are literally true, whether humans evolved, etc.)

This latter one is where many of your questions fall, though, like you probably realize, your questions can/do have an impact on how we think about the former. Also, for most of your questions, the Church has not made infallible statements about it, so most of your questions fall not into a "do Catholics believe?" but a "can Catholics believe?" category.

How do Catholics reconcile the currently accepted archeological timeline of human history with the timeline of the Bible? I'm not asking this question as someone who's looking for a Creationism vs Evolution debate. I'm simply asking in the broader historical sense that when world history timelines (both of mankind and religion) are overlaid, the proposed dates are so far off that they don't make sense to me. Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating? Is Carbon dating flawed? What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

Do Catholics believe in Carbon dating?

• YES, Catholics CAN believe in carbon dating. I would say most "educated" Catholics trust the results of carbon dating, though there are some "educated" Catholics who do not (some for religious reasons, some for scientific ones). The Church, to my knowledge, has not denied carbon dating at any point - certainly not at the current time.

Is Carbon dating flawed?

• Like any scientific instrument/process/analysis, there is always some level of uncertainty, but I would say that most people in the Church would not strongly mistrust carbon dating.

What do Christian scientists have to say about dates and timelines?

• I would say most faithful Catholic scientists are consistent with your average secular, non-believing archaeologist/anthropologist/cosmologist when it comes to dates/timelines. I am not sure about non-Catholic Christian scientists.

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations, like Gobekli Tepe for example? Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true in that perhaps the ancient civilizations are post Adam but pre Noah's flood? Is it possible the world flood did happen but the story is told differently by different civilizations?

I'm not a world historian or a religious historian. I'm kind of overwhelmed at the thought of trying to grasp just a basic understanding of time in what seems like very contradicting viewpoints; science vs religion.

If Adam and Eve are the first humans put on Earth by God, wouldn't Genesis pre-date all of these historical revelations?

• It would, IF the Genesis/OT accounts are historically accurate. Some of the OT books/dating have been shown to be consistent with modern archaeological and other understanding, but others have not.

Is it possible that the dating is wrong, but the story is true? (other civs are post-Adam and pre-flood)

• On the Church's end, it is certainly possible that the Genesis stories are accurate but mistimed. But the Church also wants to emphasize that the truth which the ancient stories recall and transmit is the TRUTH of God's ongoing and personal love for His creation and His people, rather than a historically precise recounting of people/places.

On the whole, those who form Catholic theology are quite at peace with much of what the scientific community (much of which is made up of members of the Chuch) discovers about God's creation. They teach that scientific and theological pursuits of truth can only and will arrive at the same answers about TRUTH.

 

[domer13]

During my 84 years as a Catholic AND an academic AND a scientist, I've had a lot of time to study theology. I also had a best friend who was a priest and a former ND roommate who was also a priest. I'm about as certain of the following as I can be.

GOD is a Lover and doesn't give a snit about most of these fussed-over concepts. If you ever let fussing over speculative details including cosmic pronouncements get in the way of your personal relationship with The Spirit and consequent doing the right Samaritan thing for your neighbor, you're really screwed up. Now to the biblical baloney as I and other theologians have quietly called it:

Consensus Church theology since the 19th century at the least, has rejected the concept of literally interpreting Biblical stories and particularly things like one finds in Genesis. (The sequence {days} of the creation events are, by the way stunningly intuitive, but not literal --- even the word "day" is the one which means an ERA not a solar day.) Carbon dating and all scientifically-determined cosmic evolutionary discoveries are just fine, and The Church has said so repeatedly throughout the 20th century. The Church, and myself, has always maintained that materialist reductionism might be fine for boneheaded close-minded science pursuers, but that this misses over half of reality and that there is a spiritual side, untouched by this "scientism." The main elements of this spiritual side are GOD, heavenly afterlife, free will, AND the installation of the individual soul by GOD for each one of us. Adam and Eve and The Garden manifest a spiritual story meant to be meditated upon for one's spiritual growth and wisdom. Whenever the "first" free-willing fully conscious humans came to be, who knows? It was some time in evolutionary past when GOD decided that the evolved physical vessel was sufficient to house the free-willing decision-making-for-right-and-wrong (Good vs Evil, knowledge of). Fussing about this is nonsense, beyond our data and understanding, and a dangerous-to-faith waste of time. ... as an aside, no worldwide flood happened requiring Noah to build a too-small-to-carry-all-the-animals --- which literally taken would require the dinosaurs to be on board too. The Genesis flood story comes via the Abrahamic emigrants from their Mesopotamian homeland which had several versions of it. The one that got stuck into the Bible is another case of a Jewish culture story which however has a Great spiritual message about caring for the Earth --- the so-called Rainbow Promise/covenant from GOD.

Can you find priests even the occasional bishop who is a theological ignoramus, unstudied in either science or Church 20th/21st century Vatican science pronouncements who will dumbly claim certain "literally-interpreted" untruths? Sure, The Church is a very big tent. Some morons --- even positionally-advanced ones --- live in it. The Vatican is usually liberal about not slapping them down unless they get way out of hand and start scandalizing the greater organization seriously. Since Darwin began really swaying the science community in mid-19th century, our Church reassessed a bunch of things, not wanting to repeat Galileo. Our Catholic scientists accepted the science while insisting on the status of the spiritual. The non-literal interpretation of biblical stories of the Old Testament had already been in full force since the Newtonian revolution absolutely nailed down Earths actual physical place in the universe. Our theologians were and are not uneducated fools.

Relax my friends. We are fully in resonance with proper scientific discovery. We "merely" insist upon a VERY important spiritual side of God's Creation.

Whoops - submitted before I read OMM. I (and I would say most Catholic theologians) basically agree with most of this.

God is indeed a Lover.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Blessings to you Domer. I like your post also.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Thank you for engaging. OMM and Domer essentially nailed my intuition. Thank you for putting it into words. I particularly liked how material reductionism omits the spiritual side of things, which is paramount in faith. We don't need all of the answers, all of the time, and fussing over them is besides the point. I completely agree.

I recently took up a new interest (borderline obsession) with history and when I began these classes, it just sort of made sense for me to want to understand the who, where, and when. For example, the Mesopotamian flood stories, Babylon and the discovered tablet map, the ark and Mount Ararat (Urartu). Or as NDpendent mentioned with the Jesuit Relations of North America and how so many different civilizations, scattered all over the globe, have so many similarities in their stories. I just find it all so fascinating.

 

[pumpdog20]

Man, this has been an interesting read the last two days. Thanks to those who commented.

 

[SDIrishFan]

For about the past decarde or so, I've really struggled with the idea of religion, God, and what I believe and don't believe. I've done lots of thinking, reading and listening from all sorts of people, experts, Joe Blows and am no closer to an answer.

I just have a hard time understanding or accepting many of the issues that were already brought up in this thread. The "timeline" is an example, many of the old testament stories and accepting them as "fact", do we have choice or do we not have choice, the idea that geography (where you are born) largely determines your "religious beliefs", Christian beliefs vs. the rest of the religion's beliefs, evolution vs. creationism. Or, the concept that the Bible was a collection of stories passed on by word of mouth for generations before people started to document it (how accurate is that?), then it's been ripped up and reinterpreted by kings and rulers across the globe numerous times to suit their political aspirations.

But most of all, I struggle with this idea of - if God is truly omniscient, he's either not all powerful, or not all good.

Anyway not trying to hijack the thread, just talking I guess.

 

[Blazers46]

But most of all, I struggle with this idea of - if God is truly omniscient, he's either not all powerful, or not all good.

I was just talking someone about this. No offense at all but I think that is flawed thinking and you don’t understand God if this is your struggle. God is perfect, we humans are NOT. Anything that a flawed man touches will then also be flawed. We also have free will. Someone else’s free will can affect me and my life. People talk about pollution, disease, and all the other things they blame God for not fixing. If God fixed everything what’s the point of free will? We look at this life on Earth as the end all and while life is hard it’s just a stepping stone to the next life, eternal life. We are so fixated with the “struggles” of this world. There is a lot that has happened since God created this world. The issues that followed are man made. If God answered all prayers it would do more harm than good.

 

[ulukinatme]

I was just talking someone about this. No offense at all but I think that is flawed thinking and you don’t understand God if this is your struggle. God is perfect, we humans are NOT. Anything that a flawed man touches will then also be flawed. We also have free will. Someone else’s free will can affect me and my life. People talk about pollution, disease, and all the other things they blame God for not fixing. If God fixed everything what’s the point of free will? We look at this life on Earth as the end all and while life is hard it’s just a stepping stone to the next life, eternal life. We are so fixated with the “struggles” of this world. There is a lot that has happened since God created this world. The issues that followed are man made. If God answered all prayers it would do more harm than good.

This man has clearly seen Bruce Almighty! When Bruce took over and answered everyone's prayer and gave them what they wanted, the world collapsed into anarchy.

 

[SDIrishFan]

I was just talking someone about this. No offense at all but I think that is flawed thinking and you don’t understand God if this is your struggle. God is perfect, we humans are NOT. Anything that a flawed man touches will then also be flawed. We also have free will. Someone else’s free will can affect me and my life. People talk about pollution, disease, and all the other things they blame God for not fixing. If God fixed everything what’s the point of free will? We look at this life on Earth as the end all and while life is hard it’s just a stepping stone to the next life, eternal life. We are so fixated with the “struggles” of this world. There is a lot that has happened since God created this world. The issues that followed are man made. If God answered all prayers it would do more harm than good.

Right, and I get that. But, what I truly can't fathom is the horrible things that happen in this life, in particular to young children, that has absolutely nothing to do with free will or proper amounts of prayer or really harmful intent.

 

[Blazers46]

This man has clearly seen Bruce Almighty! When Bruce took over and answered everyone's prayer and gave them what they wanted, the world collapsed into anarchy.

For sure, lol.

But think about all of your prayers that God hasn’t answered and think about how your life would be if he answered them all. The first girl I thought I’d marry is a mess. The job I missed out on doesn’t exist anymore… I am a parent and if I said yes to everything my kids would be spoiled and not have learned anything. We would all be a bunch of entitled bratty Christians with a genie basically.

 

[Blazers46]

Right, and I get that. But, what I truly can't fathom is the horrible things that happen in this life, in particular to young children, that has absolutely nothing to do with free will or proper amounts of prayer or really harmful intent.

That’s absolutely a result of free will. Like I was saying another persons free will has the ability to affect my life. Somalia and other third world countries is a result of another man’s free will. God doesn’t like it but God calls us people to take care of it. There are billions of people on this planet created to help one another. Prayer is great but when we pray from our ivory towers and just expect or hope God takes care of it is lazy. I won’t go into detail about the things we do and all the traveling we do that is missions focused but people are too consumed with their own lives and then Complain that God allowed things to happen.

 

[SDIrishFan]

That’s absolutely a result of free will. Like I was saying another persons free will has the ability to affect my life. Somalia and other third world countries is a result of another man’s free will. God doesn’t like it but God calls us people to take care of it. There are billions of people on this planet created to help one another. Prayer is great but when we pray from our ivory towers and just expect or hope God takes care of it is lazy. I won’t go into detail about the things we do and all the traveling we do that is missions focused but people are too consumed with their own lives and then Complain that God allowed things to happen.

Perhaps, and I suppose the following example may in some odd way fall into "free will", but to me it's a stretch. I just can't grasp how an all powerful being that created the universe can't be bothered to fix a few horrible things that happen in this world. And, I'm not talking about unanswered prayers for jobs or winning the lottery or whatever else. I'm talking about unimaginable suffering and death to an innocent child.

Also, I get lost in the size of the universe, which is basically unfathomable to the human mind. But, you're wanting me to believe a being could create all that, but can't fix a few horrible things?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...e0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

 

[BleedBlueGold]

For about the past decarde or so, I've really struggled with the idea of religion, God, and what I believe and don't believe. I've done lots of thinking, reading and listening from all sorts of people, experts, Joe Blows and am no closer to an answer.

I just have a hard time understanding or accepting many of the issues that were already brought up in this thread. The "timeline" is an example, many of the old testament stories and accepting them as "fact", do we have choice or do we not have choice, the idea that geography (where you are born) largely determines your "religious beliefs", Christian beliefs vs. the rest of the religion's beliefs, evolution vs. creationism. Or, the concept that the Bible was a collection of stories passed on by word of mouth for generations before people started to document it (how accurate is that?), then it's been ripped up and reinterpreted by kings and rulers across the globe numerous times to suit their political aspirations.

But most of all, I struggle with this idea of - if God is truly omniscient, he's either not all powerful, or not all good.

Anyway not trying to hijack the thread, just talking I guess.

Perhaps, and I suppose the following example may in some odd way fall into "free will", but to me it's a stretch. I just can't grasp how an all powerful being that created the universe can't be bothered to fix a few horrible things that happen in this world. And, I'm not talking about unanswered prayers for jobs or winning the lottery or whatever else. I'm talking about unimaginable suffering and death to an innocent child.

Also, I get lost in the size of the universe, which is basically unfathomable to the human mind. But, you're wanting me to believe a being could create all that, but can't fix a few horrible things?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...e0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

I used to have a constant battle between my mind and heart in terms of religion. But I never doubted God's existence. I've always been able to defer to the concept of causation. It has always been intuitive for me to accept that things, as we know them, do not come from nothing. The sculpture didn't just come into existence. There was clay, an artist, an idea. Where did these things come from? Even when you dissect them down to their smallest molecular sources, you can still ask, "But where did the molecules come from?" This principle has always resonated well within me. They came from our Creator.

As far as, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I think the combination of free will and the existence of evil will provide the answer. Not sure I can provide a substantial enough reason for your question of God's lack of intervention in said evil, other than it would interfere with free will.

 

[Blazers46]

Perhaps, and I suppose the following example may in some odd way fall into "free will", but to me it's a stretch. I just can't grasp how an all powerful being that created the universe can't be bothered to fix a few horrible things that happen in this world. And, I'm not talking about unanswered prayers for jobs or winning the lottery or whatever else. I'm talking about unimaginable suffering and death to an innocent child.

Also, I get lost in the size of the universe, which is basically unfathomable to the human mind. But, you're wanting me to believe a being could create all that, but can't fix a few horrible things?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...e0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

If you are a Christian and you believe there is a Heaven this life is almost meaningless. I know this might sound indifferent to suffering and death but my 3 year niece was born under very bad parents and circumstances and eventually murdered… as a Christian I believe God spared her an awful existence and took her early. In Christ we have that hope… if you are a nonbeliever and think my 3 year old niece is just going to become only worm food and nothing else I could see your issue. This world isn’t meant for us. To me death is just the next step. My dad is 70 and not in good health but in good spirits because he has hope for what’s next. He could complain and be a wreck with all that’s happened but he had that piece of mind.

 

[SDIrishFan]

If you are a Christian and you believe there is a Heaven this life is almost meaningless. I know this might sound indifferent to suffering and death but my 3 year niece was born under very bad parents and circumstances and eventually murdered… as a Christian I believe God spared her an awful existence and took her early. In Christ we have that hope… if you are a nonbeliever and think my 3 year old niece is just going to become only worm food and nothing else I could see your issue. This world isn’t meant for us. To me death is just the next step. My dad is 70 and not in good health but in good spirits because he has hope for what’s next. He could complain and be a wreck with all that’s happened but he had that piece of mind.

Thank you for sharing and I’m terribly sorry to hear about your niece and father.

At the end of the day, that’s my struggle. I WANT to believe that there is a heaven that I can spend eternity with loved ones. But for whatever reason, my brain looks at all the “evidence” and has a hard time getting there.

It’s hard for me not to think religion, god, the afterlife, was just man’s way of dealing with mortality.

Believe me, it’s also hard for me to imagine that the enormity of the universe came from…nothing? A singularity? An alternate universe? too...