What I Will (and Won't) Debate
The Counsel of Trent | 4 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs6z7asjta4
5:18 I'm looking forward to your debate with Rob Skiba's son.
Apart from Rob Skiba, I actually don't know of any Christian Flat Earthers. His widow and his (step?) son are obviously of his conviction.
5:30 That the view of Flat Earth is fringe if correct. As to harmful, how is it more harmful than the equally fringe view that Finland doesn't exist?
I mean, Finland deniers could be people who, in an attempt of cherishing what Putin cherishes, including the Great Patriotic War, would want to deny that in 1940 Stalin made an attack on Finland, which was so far not allied to Hitler. I think that's way more harmful than saying (even if it's wrong) "NASA is lying to us" ...
6:12 Instead of "American Holocaust" you might prefer to speak of a "near world wide" one.
For 2021 or 2022, death tolls world wide were 67.1 million. For some quirky reason, excluding abortions. Abortions were 73 million. For somequirky reason not included in the death tolls.
Russia would seem to be so far still more abortive than the US. I think China is worse than Russia.
8:16 I may not "condemn Catholics" who believe the age of the Earth is in the area of 4.5 billion. I'm not their bishop.
What I however very much do is, ask how this is compatible with certain things of the faith.
I'm not just appealing to Trent Session IV, consensus of Fathers. And when it comes to "hath held and doeth now hold" I usually cite it in answer to people, who, unlike you, think they can condemn me for being YEC or at least for being vocal about it. In their view, CCC § 283 can be seen as sth the Church "does now hold", but obviously, even if it's the Church which judges, it doesn't meat the criterium of "hath held and now holdeth" ... no, there is way more.
Trent Session V.
Adam existed, and his sin instantaneously bereft himself, both of having grace, and of transmitting it in generation.
How is this compatible with billions of years?
If you don't pay attention to carbon dates and don't get into details about the supposed science, you may miss the contradiction. It's possible Pius XII did so. If he thought a five billion year old earth (as he stated the next year) and Adam's body descending from non-human progenitors before God made him image of God, if he thought this was compatible with monogenism and with Genesis 1 through 11 being a Readers Digest version sprinkled with some figures of speech of what the process from first creation to Abraham actually was like, and that's the limits he considered non-negotiable, then he was not very well informed about what the supposed science says. He was obviously an educated man. But being in 1896, when Catholics still published YEC tracts with ecclesiastic approval, 20 years, in Italy and not England, this does not mean he was either very expert or very eager to adher to what "science" had to say on this subject.
At the end of the first academic year however, in the summer of 1895, he dropped out of both the Capranica and the Gregorian University. According to his sister Elisabetta, the food at the Capranica was to blame.[16] Having received a special dispensation he continued his studies from home and so spent most of his seminary years as an external student. In 1899, he completed his education in Sacred Theology with a doctoral degree awarded on the basis of a short dissertation and an oral examination in Latin.
He was as sheltered from some things as a homeschooler from Texas could be. I'm not.
Carbon dates guarantee that IF the atmosphere is old (a very relevant topic on carbon dating), THEN men anatomically and genetically very close to ourselves and having all genetic and anatomic traits connected to speech were extant 40 000 years ago and some earlier.
a) saying they were pre-Adamites begs the question why someone who was not image of God (again, a requirement by Pius XII) could speak;
b) saying they were pre-Adamites also begs the question of how Adam could be the common ancestor of all who now live, and if you try to resolve it by "common yes, unique no" that means Adamites were marrying (if that's the word) creatures that, as non-human, were unable to consent;
c) saying Adam lived then or even earlier means a very long waiting time for the Messiah, under conditions very prone to confusing the tradition, a bit like if Jesus had chosen His Disciples in the Americas, and specifically Mid West Amazonas or Great Plains rather than Mayan territories, and if "for God one day is like a thousand years" the traditional chronology means God actually, in a sense which Adam at the end of his long life would have understood did send the Redeemer within six days. With your view, the waiting time seems absurdly long, especially if you don't take the long lifespans literally;
d) saying Adam lived then or even earlier also means too long time for the Genesis 3 events to have faded from correct historic tradition. To Scofield, a Protestant, we may know Genesis 3, including Genesis 3:15, was revealed to Moses. I'd agree the six days were, but the ensuing human history, no, Haydock is clear we know it from tradition, and Moses is to that tradition, as Luke was to the tradition from those who had been with Christ. The prophecy view also makes nonsense of itself by inaccuracy of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
And obviously, if you presume Genesis 3 is known in a very deformed way as to the facts, as may be expected by carrying a tradition purely orally over 40 000 years, that's contrary to the actual words of that perhaps still faithful, perhaps still Pope, when on historicity of Genesis 1 through 11, he holds it to be told in a popular way, and using metaphors, which translates as it being a Readers' Digest version of the facts, told with some figures of speech.
In the light of so many years, there would logically be a possibility for very different views on Genesis 3, like saying the Snake was right, or like saying an advanced alien civilisation preserved the facts (and they invariably in the versions I've heard contradict the version of the Bible). Or that it was a pious fable, written late. Perhaps invented during the Exile.
You mentioned your view that YEC has led to apostasies. Well, that could be for a lack of Creation Science, or similar ventures of Apologetics doing at least amateur science for the literal truth of Genesis 1 through 11. I think I have made a case for how many apostasies have been provoked very much for believing the supposed "science" ...
So, I make a case that Old Earth / Deep Time, Theistic Evolution, is highly corrosive of some dogmas, and indeed key dogmas, of the faith. While the Inklings (inlcuding a very famous Catholic) thought they had ways around these pitfalls, that fails. I've written, with the greatest respect for CSL and JRRT as cherished artists and great thinkers, refutations of such solutions. In The Problem of Pain, CSL proposes the fall was collective. This is not compatible with Trent Session V. It also makes the god who accepts a collective sin as a reason to bind people in a trap of sinfulness that of Supralapsarian Calvinism. Individuals have freewill, even if they don't always exercise it. Collectives as such do not. They usually find ways in making the freewill of some official palliate that lack, but as collectives, they do not have freewill. A collective sin cannot be accounted in the same way. And all collective sins we do find in the Bible are involving less than all of mankind.
1) Pre-Flood men.
2) Babel builders.
3) Sodom citizens.
4) Egyptians deciding to oppress Israelites.
...
5) Taking the Mark of the Beast, persecuting those who do not take it.
Noah, Heber, Lot, Moses and the Israelites, the 144 000 ... God never allowed all of mankind to fall into a collective actual sin. The seemingly less bad alternative to an individual and unique Adam is an individual representative Adam. Why would pre-sin man have needed a representative?
If you reply, Adam could have been a saviour, but failed to become so, where did the previous sin come from? A "product of evolution" would equally be the answer of essentially a Supralapsarian Calvinist.
- A….
- @user-sq9ec1fz7o
- I think part of the answer would be.
Being that there is zero evidence for the earth being young, it might be the young earth creationist who is misinterpreting the Bible.
If genesis is intended to say young earth creationism is true, the scientific evidence should follow if God made the earth young instead of through a different process
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @user-sq9ec1fz7o Given there is plenty of historic evidence in the Bible the Earth is young, maybe some guys are interpreting the "evidence" (presumably meaning scientific one) wrong.
"the scientific evidence should follow if God made the earth young"
Why would "scientific evidence" at all be able to make out the difference?
Why repose only on one of two opposing (though very differently sized) teams of scientists?
How is your comment not tantamount to "if God intended us to believe in freewill, why did He create a Zodiac, so we can make horoscopes?"
AND, you have given ZERO solution to my arguments why Deep Time is not just wrong, but also against the Catholic faith.
Perhaps, I cannot tell from your channel who or what you are, you are very uninterested in Roman Catholic dogma. I am not, Trent Horn is not, if you are that uninterested, why are you at all interested in getting into the way of a debate I'm trying to have with Trent Horn?
If you are one of a seeming giant team dedicated just to making me question my positions, how can I not want to box you and your likes? Any evil I can sometimes suffer from Muslims, as a homeless writer, I'm suffering from you too. Twice more, at least then from them. And if you aren't that team, why did you take the precaution to answer me with an empty channel with a non-identifiable user name?
Thou art legio, for ye are many. Get your tribe of swine into Lake Kinnereth, and stop pestering me.
[end of dialogue]
"not condemn Catholics who 8:13 believe the Earth is not thousands of 8:15 years old which has included people like 8:17 Pope Pius XII and St Maximilan Kolbe"
Neither of these grew up confronting Deep Time and Theistic (or other) Evolution in their natural habitat, not even the one from back then, let alone their contemporary one.
It's like asking a Saudi Arabian who has never been abroad "is Evolution compatible with Islam?" ... he will have no experience of how Evolution is (with very great display of intelligent comprehension) forwarded by Forrest Valkai. Or even a more civilised man, Paulogia.
It's also like asking me to take Robert Sungenis' word for it being innocuous to Young Earth Evolution to accept α Centauri is 4 light years away. And certain "other galaxies" perhaps 100 000 or millions of light years away. He was culturally able to innocently recycle what I had also believed, that God miraculously speeded up the starlight, as if the problem was restricted to why we can already see the stars. What about Novas = Exploding stars, where the distance means that the explosion took place before we were all created, on the YEC view?
Now, that's the exact point at which I became Geocentric (with 24 hours delay). It's nice to be an Apologist for people who never confront Forrest Valkai and never hear about distant Novas. Have fun while it lasts, but if you truly think you're doing your audience a favour by helping to marginalise an Apologist with fewer such luxuries, eternity may be less funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment