4 ms·

I do understand that there are those who believe in a so called literal interpretation and thus equate each day of creation in Genesis to a thousand years but I

I do understand that there are those who believe in a so called literal interpretation and thus equate each day of creation in Genesis to a thousand years but I don't understand their response to the big bang theory. I would think they would proudly proclaim, "Science now agrees with what we said for thousands of years. Namely, that the universe had a beginning." Instead their response was to attack it vehemently. It's a strange response to me. I think St. Augustine's argument for why there is a God assumes that there was no beginning to the universe because he said that if the universe had a beginning then obviously there is a god. St. Augustine would have viewed the big bang theory as irrefutable proof that there is a god.

dcow 3y ago
I mean yeah I agree. I think most Catholics are amenable to TBBT for exactly that reason. I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Point is that Catholic doctrine and hence a well thought out framework for approaching christianity is likely not relevant to the type of person refuting TBBT on religious grounds. In my experience these types are definitely a minority, at least.
- skissane 3y ago
  > I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In which he said that its literal meaning is that the Seven Days were all instantaneous and simultaneous. "Biblical literalism" is fundamentally a (non-magisterial) Protestant position, and insists that the Bible "literally" says things which nobody ever thought it said until the 19th century (e.g. dispensationalism). Turns out that "literal" means whatever you want it to mean. But a lot of people (particularly in the US) make the mistake of equating "evangelical Protestantism" with "Christianity", or even with religion in general, attributing to the latter two things which are rather unique to the former.
  - dcow 3y ago
    If’s rather annoying always having to make this distinction clear, coming from a Catholic background myself.

dcow 3y ago

I mean yeah I agree. I think most Catholics are amenable to TBBT for exactly that reason. I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Point is that Catholic doctrine and hence a well thought out framework for approaching christianity is likely not relevant to the type of person refuting TBBT on religious grounds. In my experience these types are definitely a minority, at least.

skissane 3y ago
> I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In which he said that its literal meaning is that the Seven Days were all instantaneous and simultaneous. "Biblical literalism" is fundamentally a (non-magisterial) Protestant position, and insists that the Bible "literally" says things which nobody ever thought it said until the 19th century (e.g. dispensationalism). Turns out that "literal" means whatever you want it to mean. But a lot of people (particularly in the US) make the mistake of equating "evangelical Protestantism" with "Christianity", or even with religion in general, attributing to the latter two things which are rather unique to the former.
- dcow 3y ago
  If’s rather annoying always having to make this distinction clear, coming from a Catholic background myself.