Spirituality
06 May 05
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst, I quoted from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM; unless you have a copy of the Pope's handwritten draft of the encyclical I would say that your posing as usual.
First of all, when you quote, quote correctly (especially since you claim it's the "EXACT sentence" ):
"... explains the origin of all this" should read "... explains the origin of all things".
Second, what does t ...[text shortened]... nally, what's with the juvenile insults and typing in CAPS?
LH
Second, the Pope is mentally confused as you are to smash together a theory explaining facts of a biological nature with his metaphysical ramblings. The Pope is clearly discussing the TOE and then projecting some mangled version of it on others in a "metaphysical" sense. It's not my fault he's incoherently mixing apples and oranges.
Third, biological evolution is a fact; how that evolution came about is subject to differing theories. There is a quote in a post of mine in the thread "Theory and prediction" which neatly sums up the facts of evolution. Understand the difference if you don't want to be left in the intellectual wasteland populated by the fundamentalist cultists and the Calvinist anti-science crew.
Fourth, see two above.
Fifth, hey Mr. Know-it-all, polygenism is referring to the possibility of multiple sources of the human race rather than merely one. That's not a subject of the TOE? Get a science book. sweetie.
I'll post how ever I want; I find your pseudo intellectual posing when you have little of anything coherent to say to be insulting. If you don't like it, alert it.
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer"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). "
First of all, when you quote, quote correctly (especially since you claim it's the "EXACT sentence" ):
"... explains the origin of all this" should read "... explains the origin of all things".
Second, what does t ...[text shortened]... nally, what's with the juvenile insults and typing in CAPS?
LH
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
That's a pope on prior popistry : guess what the probability that 2 succeeding infallible Popes can be in error is?
08 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't it tweak ya a bit to have to stick up for the Popes words , just because the uninformed don't know their own Popisms.
First, I quoted from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM; unless you have a copy of the Pope's handwritten draft of the encyclical I would say that your posing as usual.
Second, the Pope is mentally confused as you are to smash together a theory explaining facts of a biological nature with his metaphysical ramblings. The ...[text shortened]... ittle of anything coherent to say to be insulting. If you don't like it, alert it.
The fundies did take notice of it tho , heaping scorn on da heretic popes and da cult dey rode in on.
08 May 05
Originally posted by frogstomp
"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). "
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
That's a pope on ...[text shortened]... pistry : guess what the probability that 2 succeeding infallible Popes can be in error is?
.... lol ...... you little devil you 😀
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI think the 1996 address sugarcoated the hostility to evolution contained in the 1950 encyclical. I do agree that the 1996 address, esp. the part where he mentioned the strong evidence which had "converged" for the TOE and that it was not "sought or fabricated" like the Satanhidingthedinosaurbones crew assert, is a tacit admission of the validity of the TOE. Better late and not explicit than never.
"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 sev ...[text shortened]... bility that 2 succeeding infallible Popes can be in error is?
08 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, I quoted from the Vatican website. There seems to be a slight difference in translation. Apologies for the implied slight.
First, I quoted from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM; unless you have a copy of the Pope's handwritten draft of the encyclical I would say that your posing as usual.
Second, the Pope is mentally con ...[text shortened]... say to be insulting. If you don't like it, alert it.
Second, the general concept of evolution (including evolution of species, societies, ethics, reality etc.) is a philosophical concept. The Pope isn't mixing up other forms of evolution with biological theories of evolution - he's making it clear that the two cannot be mixed up and theories in the latter cannot be blindly be applied to the former (cue: Herbert Spencer).
Third, I'll grant that the evolution of species itself is widely considered a fact and the proposed mechanisms are theories with differing levels of acceptability. Of course, strictly speaking, all the evidence given in your post in the "theory and prediction" thread themselves depend on on other scientific theories/laws (e.g. carbon dating depends on an exponential rate of decay).
Fourth, see two above.
Fifth, I didn't say polygenism was not related to evolution. I said that polygenism isn't the same as evolution. You claimed that "[the Pope] insists that evolution must be discarded [in para 37]". That's blatantly false - he insists that polygenism must be discarded, not evolution per se. Read your own posts.
If I want science lessons, I can do better than to approach a lawyer.
08 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you want logic lessons, and you need them, you'd do a lot better than reading the turgid church documents like the 1950 encyclical. Most of your post is your usual waste of space denying the undenialable, but I take issue with your out of context quoting of a part of my point 5. I said: "
First, I quoted from the Vatican website.
Second, the general concept of evolution (including evolution of species, societies, ethics, reality etc.) is a philosophical concept. The Pope isn't mixing up other forms of evolution with biological theories of evolution - he's making it clear that the two cannot be mixed up and theories in the latter c ...[text shortened]... e. Read your own posts.
If I want science lessons, I can do better than to approach a lawyer.
Perhaps he was talking about "metaphysical evolution" in paragraph 37 when he insists that evolution must be discarded if the scientific evidence indicates that any human beings are not descendants of Adam!!
What he's saying in paragraph 37 is that no matter what scientific evidence is produced, the Church will not accept that any man now alive is not a descendant of Adam because it would screw up the whole "original sin" business. Science don't work like that; if the evidence says there are multiple descendants of modern man (a still debated issue) then that's what accepted. He doesn't insist that "polygenism be discarded"; he insists it cannot even be considered! There's quite a big difference there and I read that paragraph to mean that if evolutionary theory concluded based on the evidence that polygenism is the most likely conclusion, that the RCC would reject it. I see no other way to read it and you can't "cherry pick" beforehand which conclusions of a scientific inquiry are acceptable and which are not.
08 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI bet Norm Crosby is a Papal speech writer.
I think the 1996 address sugarcoated the hostility to evolution contained in the 1950 encyclical. I do agree that the 1996 address, esp. the part where he mentioned the strong evidence which had "converged" for the TOE and that it was not "sought or fabricated" like the Satanhidingthedinosaurbones crew assert, is a tacit admission of the validity of the TOE. Better late and not explicit than never.
Either that or they wanna just keep their aura of mysticism
08 May 05
Originally posted by rwingett*pretends you said something that angers me greatly*
Your sources are a complete waste of time. I reject them out of hand. As I don't have the time to heap public scorn upon you as promised, just pretend I said something here which angers you greatly.
and albeit my sources were'nt the best, but there are others. i was meerly showing a site done by a handful of professional archeologists and whatnot. many of whome are respected professors who all beleive in creation. and all have evidence for it and against evolution.
why is that not worth the time?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderJesus teaches that Moses told the Israelites of this creation because they were too hard too teach. The refutation that we are not all descended from Adam doesn't screw up whole original sin concept. Genesis is a complete metaphor that even the Catholic catechism acknowleges.
If you want logic lessons, and you need them, you'd do a lot better than reading the turgid church documents like the 1950 encyclical. Most of your post is your usual waste of space denying the undenialable, but I take issue with your out of context quoting of a part of my point 5. I said: "
Perhaps he was talking about "metaphysical ...[text shortened]... ry pick" beforehand which conclusions of a scientific inquiry are acceptable and which are not.
08 May 05
1 edit
It is of course of great importance to determine whether encyclicals are "ex cathedra" statements or not. They are not. Therefore infallibility in this discussion does not play a role. The present Pope may well amend another Pope's view expressed in a previous encyclical. Not every writing, homily or speech the Pope delivers is automatically infallible. The misunderstandings around this collection of notions sometimes lead to very amusing and persisting misunderstandings certain people, enemies of the Church, want to hold on to because of political advantages they expect to gain from it.
08 May 05
Originally posted by Conrau KUp til the part where the Abram leaves Heran, Genesis is all modified Chaldean Mythology and legends.
Jesus teaches that Moses told the Israelites of this creation because they were too hard too teach. The refutation that we are not all descended from Adam doesn't screw up whole original sin concept. Genesis is a complete metaphor that even the Catholic catechism acknowleges.
the Creation : Enuma Elish
Eden : Dilmon
Noah's Flood : Xiusudra's Flood
Tower of Babel : the change from Indo-European to Semitic
Even Mose's babyhood was a retelling of the story of Sargon.
08 May 05
Originally posted by Conrau Kbut just cause it acknowledges it, that doesn't mean it's truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue!
Jesus teaches that Moses told the Israelites of this creation because they were too hard too teach. The refutation that we are not all descended from Adam doesn't screw up whole original sin concept. Genesis is a complete metaphor that even the Catholic catechism acknowleges.
08 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeand you call me a devil.
It is of course of great importance to determine whether encyclicals are "ex cathedra" statements or not. They are not. Therefore infallibility in this discussion does not play a role. The present Pope may well amend another Pope's view expressed in a previous encyclical. Not every writing, homily or speech the Pope delivers is automatically infallible. ...[text shortened]... of the Church, want to hold on to because of political advantages they expect to gain from it.
Creation is either a core belief of the RCC or it's not, God's representative on earth ought to have a consistent position on such a fundamental (there's that silly word again) part of religion.
As far as I know: In matters concerning the core religion, the RCC considers the Pope infallible. Therefore , I have to conclude you are saying the matter of creation is not a matter of the faith.