Spirituality
06 May 05
08 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompbut your asssssssssuming!
Of course Genesis aint truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue !
anyway, the bible and evolution cannot coexist as the survival of the fittest shindig is not a very nice way of working it - animals dying off if they can't adapt to survive? doesn't sound like a very loving God to me...
08 May 05
Originally posted by geniusRead Joshua and survival of the fittest seems like one of His nicer doings.
but your asssssssssuming!
anyway, the bible and evolution cannot coexist as the survival of the fittest shindig is not a very nice way of working it - animals dying off if they can't adapt to survive? doesn't sound like a very loving God to me...
BTW did every living creature eat from dat tree in da garden?
if not why are they punished with death? or didnt god mean that as a non-immediate happening when he said "you shall surely die"?
I know that sounds cryptic but I just woke up and aint put da fire and brimstone under da coffeepot yet.
08 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
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.
How ironic. Considering you've been doing little else in this and the Habemvs Papam threads.
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.
If a particular biological evolutionary theory has premises that necessitate polygenism, then those premises (and conclusions following from them) will be rejected by the Church. That's not the same as saying the Church will reject evolution (i.e. all evolutionary theories) per se if one of those theories necessitates polygenism. Yet that was your implication.
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer.....It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generis, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
Originally posted by no1marauder
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.
How ironic. Considering you've been doing l ...[text shortened]... those theories necessitates polygenism. Yet that was your implication
That is RCC doctrine !
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=80
wow I just remembered where the right wing Protestants got the the term " Bleeding Heart Liberal "
Maybe God does work in mysterious ways ..lol
08 May 05
Originally posted by frogstomp
and you call me a devil.
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.
Oh ........ 😕
08 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompThe question of whether God created the universe is a matter of core belief; how He did it is not.
and you call me a devil.
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.
08 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompyeah-but they we evil people, what had the animals done to deserve death? i mean, if evolution is so then these animals were races created solely to be extinct...they didn't bring it on themselves. the people in joshua did.
Read Joshua and survival of the fittest seems like one of His nicer doings.
BTW did every living creature eat from dat tree in da garden?
if not why are they punished with death? or didnt god mean that as a non-immediate happening when he said "you shall surely die"?
I know that sounds cryptic but I just woke up and aint put da fire and brimstone under da coffeepot yet.
08 May 05
Originally posted by geniusYou people make me sick; it's A-OK to stick a sword in a baby in the Old Testament if it's a member of an "evil people" but "what had the animals done to deserve death"???????????? You need psychiatric care.
yeah-but they we evil people, what had the animals done to deserve death? i mean, if evolution is so then these animals were races created solely to be extinct...they didn't bring it on themselves. the people in joshua did.
08 May 05
Originally posted by Conrau KA) Where is the Gospels does Jesus say such a thing? Nowhere, of course and please don't quote me his repudiation of Mosaic divorce law as "proof" of your assertion as it has nothing to do with creation. I don't recall Jesus saying anything about the Garden of Eden story and certainly not saying it was a "complete metaphor'.
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.
B) Says you; Pope Pius XII thought differently:
For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Papal Encyclical Humanae Generis
1950
08 May 05
Originally posted by geniusI wouldn't know exactly how pathetic your sources were as I refused to even look at them. As I said, I discounted them out of hand.
*pretends you said something that angers me 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?
The only people who respect creationist professors are other creationists. Everyone else thinks they are intellectually stunted pariahs.
Why is it not worth the time? I wouldn't waste my time researching an anti-semite's views to see if he had a point. I would reject his argument out of hand. Likewise, I see no reason why I should stoop to giving a creationist the time of day. Both anti-semitism and creationism are views which are so ridiculous as to simply not be worth serious consideration.
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettyou make me laugh!
I wouldn't know exactly how pathetic your sources were as I refused to even look at them. As I said, I discounted them out of hand.
The only people who respect creationist professors are other creationists. Everyone else thinks they a ...[text shortened]... re so ridiculous as to simply not be worth serious consideration.
i don't know what your profession or whatever is, but if it's got anything to do with science i...i don't know what i'll do, but...meh...
actually, most qualifications require people to look at all the evidence and form opinions based on said evidence. so, erm, yeah...
*laughs*
08 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusLOL you agree that the poor little animals didn't deserve death, so are you saying that God is a refugee from the ASPCA?
yeah-but they we evil people, what had the animals done to deserve death? i mean, if evolution is so then these animals were races created solely to be extinct...they didn't bring it on themselves. the people in joshua did.
edit God was hiding lol
08 May 05
Originally posted by geniusYour mistake lies in assuming that creationism counts as viable evidence. It is not. Creationism is nothing but a pathetic joke. A rather unfunny one at that. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together came to that conclusion at least 150 years ago. That there are still people babbling on like the village idiot about creationism as we move into the 21st century is a source for grave concern about the future of the human race.
you make me laugh!
i don't know what your profession or whatever is, but if it's got anything to do with science i...i don't know what i'll do, but...meh...
actually, most qualifications require people to look at all the evidence and form opinions based on said evidence. so, erm, yeah...
*laughs*
08 May 05
Originally posted by rwingetthow do you know that if you haven't looked at the evidence?
Your mistake lies in assuming that creationism counts as viable evidence. It is not. Creationism is nothing but a pathetic joke. A rather unfunny one at that. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together came to that conclusion at least 150 years ago. That there are still people babbling on like the village idiot about creationism as we move into the 21st century is a source for grave concern about the future of the human race.