Did the Catholic Church shoot itself in the foot by accepting evolution?

Did the Catholic Church shoot itself in the foot by accepting evolution?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Genre
youtube.com/watch?v=jfG_laZuSMQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, if anything it probably helped Catholics who are having a hard time reconciling their faith with modern science remain Catholic. Modern knowledge is killing literal interpretations of the Bible, so the best way to survive is to adapt.

When you think about it, evolution pretty much invalidates Christianity:

Evolution = no Adam & Eve = no original sin = no point in Jesus dying and resurrecting.

Treating the Bible as a mostly allegorical or meta-narrative pathway to The Truth is the only way to both be smart and be a Christian

No, it makes some version of Christianity acceptable to those who believe in evolution.

t. former Protestant who converted to Catholicism partly because of evolution

If its allegorical and has no basis in firm truth there is literally no point in sticking to the christian dogma you retard. That's how religion that claims divine authority works, either its all truth or trash.

No. Early Christians thought literal interpetation was dumb too.

>>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

>Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man
What did he mean by this?

I say it shot itself in the foot by accepting the Heliocentric theory

>says Heaven is in the heavens
>turns out the heavens are just rocks and gas
>then where is heaven?

No.

Christianity, and it's evolution into Judeo-Christianity, was destined to fall before Progressiveness.

They accepted devolution last time I checked. And not exactly shoot itself in the foot, as thrown themselves at others feet.

You say that like any Christians other than a dozen million American and African proddies still believe in YEC. Even among Protestants, most churches already jumped that shark to varying degrees. Taking Genesis literally is super contrarian and edgy now.

Why do people keep posting that picture and never this one?

He meant that adding up the made-up genealogies in the Bible only accounts for 6000 years or so.

Belief in dogma is becoming more and more untenable as science progresses. Christianity (and the other abrahamics for that matter) are going to need to evolve into something less dogmatic and more based on the spiritual experiment itself. Sufism, Reform Judaism will need to move forward. Western mysticism. Even Christian mysticism. Eastern influence from Buddhism as well is vital as well as many religious (non orthodox) jews are accepting.

Forgive phoneposting

I forgive.

There's nothing in the Bible that disproves evolution. In fact, depending how you interpret the first few lines of Genesis (the 7-day creation), you could argue that JudeoChristianity supports evolution.

>Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."
>God called the vault "sky."
Atmosphere around the earth is formed.
>And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
Continents and oceans are formed from volcanic eruptions and tectonic drift and such.
>Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
Plants and simple organisms came first.
>And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."
Life came out of the ocean, dinosaurs became birds.
>God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
More sophisticated land mammals start appearing.
>Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
And finally, humans come along.

But even that's pretty silly. Genesis is the part of the Bible that deals with the creation of life and the origin of humanity. Genesis also happens to be pure mythology. There are books in the Bible that are historical in nature, but Genesis isn't one of them. It'd be pretty fucking sad if any modern-day organization, even the Catholic church, used Genesis to justify their beliefs in our origin.

>There are books in the Bible that are historical in nature, but Genesis isn't one of them

Wikipedia disagrees

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Genre

Augustine too

>The narrative in [Genesis] is not written in a literary style proper to allegory, as in the Song of Songs, but from beginning to end in a style proper to history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type
The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 8.1.2

Naturally, because the first part of genesis was directly ripped from the Enuma Elish.

christianity is adapting to survive

you could say its... evolving

Pretty much. The Christian belief has always been in God has a creator of everything, mankind, earth, the entire universe.

The interpretation that God had to actually create man and woman at a certain time out of nothing belittles God, manipulates Him to fit him into a quite arrogant antropocentric stand.

The interpretation that creation itself since the big bang, going through all those stages, time, stars, planets, life, man, evolution all following a divine masterplan is much more grandiose and elegant.

The ones negating evolution, apart of being a bunch of backwards dumb idiots, are actually the ones trying to put God into a little tinbox.

Christianity shot itself in the foot when it decided that circumcision wasn't a requirement

it was all downhill from there

I like you.

I will circumcise you last.

Yahweh is pleased with this post.

Yahu akbar!
bar bar
Yahu akbar!

You know what yahu Akbar (Yahu is great) really means?

Truly the most supreme bene.

excuse me God but that doesn't look circumcised

Augustine of Hippo said the Earth is 6000 years old
>in 400A.D.
>"lelelelel jus liek da Krystcucks today!"

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

>Did the Catholic Church shoot itself in the foot by accepting evolution?

The church shot itself in the foot centuries ago when it chose to worship the devil.

> Evolution = no Adam & Eve = no original sin = no point in Jesus dying and resurrecting.

The sin Jesus is murdered for is the sin of the Jews worshiping the false prophet Moses.

youtube.com/watch?v=jfG_laZuSMQ

Please explain.

So if he lived today he'd say that the earth is 7600 years old.

Catholics figured out a lot of things which lead to the theory of evolution.

>Did Satanists shoot themselves in the foot by accepting Satanic lies

Gee, I wonder

t. Female Bishop

t. pedophile Pope

Pedophile Pope should breed female Bishop.

loli bishop X John Paul is now headcanon

I'VE READ THIS.

Christcucks quote this essay so much that I've finally read them.

It's an unfinished book, it could be called an essay, wherein Augustine, while recognizing the absurdity of the genesis myth, nevertheless provides no positive substitute interpretation thereof. Rather he offers a number of tentative interpretations, allegorical and otherwise, without favoring any particular one. Moreover no opinion of any particular theologian constitutes an authoritative, infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church, much less of Christendom as a whole!

Therefore to suggest, as christards do, that Augustine's allegorical interpretations are somehow representative of a traditional Christian view of scripture, and that only in modern times, modern, more retarded versions of Christianity (namely American evangelitards) have interpreted genesis literally for the first time in the history of chritardom, is preposterous.

Conclusion:

Christardianity was retarded then, is retarded now, and will be retarded for as long as it exists.

This.

Of course not. That comic is crude.

No because God stil has a place in evolution, otherwise nothing became something became advanced life rather than just stay simple forever which is far more energy efficient