G
Glark
Guest
Brilliant thoughts from a clear-sighted Pope who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. My oh my, how the thoughts of many Catholics have degenerated since then!
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sounding doctrine, but having itching ears they accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” - 2Tim 4:2-4
We are witnessing prophesy unfolding before our very eyes. The deception and corruption viz-a-viz evolution will deepen until it has served its purpose.
We are witnessing prophesy unfolding before our very eyes. The deception and corruption viz-a-viz evolution will deepen until it has served its purpose.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Exactly! All the Church’s translators from the past must have incompetent, bumbling idiots.
G
Glark
Guest
After reading these words, my fragile, egg-shell mind reeled and descended into a maelstrom of confusion and perplexity, causing me to collapse into a fetal position, sucking my thumb for several hours - but I’m sure they are words of truth.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
You seem to have overlooked the crucial point that after God “formed” Adam from inanimate matter, he was still “dust” and did not have life. It wasn’t until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” that what God had formed changed from inanimate matter to a living being.
Furthermore, you also seem to have overlooked another crucial point in Genesis 2: 7 - the significance of the words, “and man became a living being.” These words make no sense at all if Adam was the offspring of a living creature. Adam was born from a living being and “became a living being”? What? That’s absurd. It’s stating the bleedin’ obvious … a bit like saying, “When I was born I became a living being.” Duh! No kidding, Einstein!
However, if Adam was formed from inanimate matter, it makes perfect sense to mention that he “became a living beng”, as it describes the vast difference between the former (“the dust of the ground”) and the latter (“a living being”).
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
As I stated earlier, the Catholic Church that I belong to says evolution is incompatible with Scripture. So it seems there are two Catholic Churches - a true one and a false one.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
In common with the rest of my fellow scientists, I have no knowledge of the history of the world. What we do have is a coherent comprehensive explanation for a huge number of observations that seem relevant to the question. Whether my knowledge of this coherent comprehensive explanation is impressive or not I leave to others to judge. You will, of course, note the copious use of the subjective and conditional in my responses.
To my knowledge, the minotaur has yet to evolve, but there are a number of bull-necked, obstinate, short-sighted, snorting, hoof-scraping commenters on this site which leads me to believe that it is not far off.
I think there are numerous false ones, but if they are all only 0.14% false I don’t think we need get over excited about them.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Not at all. Quite the reverse. When the earlier translators used the word “Man”, they were perfectly aware that it was a translation of a plural word which did not imply any particular number. “Man”, then, as quite often now, meant Mankind as much as any particular sex or individual. Unfortunately, since the translation has been made available to incompetent, bumbling idiots, it has become necessary to make it simpler and easier to understand.
G
Glark
Guest
In my opinion, the CCC contains errors in at least four paragraphs, so, no, it isn’t infallible.
G
Glark
Guest
Luke 3 says Adam’s immediate ancestor was “God”.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Are you aware of the following two paragraphs from the CCC? …
337 - “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ …” (emphasis mine).
362 - "The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once both corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (emphasis mine).
And can “symbolic” also mean “literal”? Not where I come from - they’re polar opposites! So these paragraphs not only enable a symbolic interpretation, they effectively PRECLUDE A LITERAL INTERPRETATION.
G
Glark
Guest
Apart from the Scriptures I mentioned that suggest the possibility of corruption within the Church, you need to consider the meaning of the word, “prevail”. Consider the Arian heresy that was very widespread in the Church (90% of bishops were Arians!): It had its “day in the sun”, but it didn’t “prevail” - ie, it was eventually rooted out and extinguished.
Also consider the clerical altar-boy molesters scandal - this corruption won’t “prevail” either, but will eventually be eradicated from the Church.
So even though some of the plots of the devil (“the gates of hell”) may enter the Church for a season, none of them will “prevail” forever. That’s what the Scripture means.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Fortunately for Glark (and for me, I guess)*, almost nothing of the Church’s teaching is defined as infallible, although I guess to recite the creed knowing that you fundamentally disagreed with any of it would be a bit dishonest.
- and for the Catholic Church itself, now I come to think of it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Its speaking to how everything is created from eternity, God’s Now, outside of and at the same time encompassing all time. We, in his image exist within our finite now. It’s not finite in the sense that it is bordered; “now” doesn’t begin or end, but just is. That now, while eternal, meets time in this moment, where we exist, having and immutable past and a future of possibilities moving towards a final destiny we choose. Everything happens in its moment, where we will ourselves to be who we decide to be through our actions, which are ultimately all in relation to God. This past-present-future is the temporal manifestation of our free will on a journey towards or away from God, either being true to our nature as part of the one true Vine, the Way that is Jesus Christ, or as solitary branches that will wither and die.
This is the reality of human being that first came into the world as Adam - an individual who was the first expression of our kind of being.
This is the reality of human being that first came into the world as Adam - an individual who was the first expression of our kind of being.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Imagine the following conversation.
Random Dude: Hey, could you tell me about Jesus?
Me: He’s the Son of God. He died for our sins that we might live.
RD: So God, he loves us?
Me: Yes, and by living his commands and living Him we can be given the gift of eternal life.
RD: So this eternal life, is it nice?
Me: Yeah, it’s literally heaven.
RD: Tell me more about Christianity.
Me: Well, you should know that contrary to what atheistic science would tell you, rain doesn’t happen because of condensation. Rain happens because outer space is full of water.
RD: But, but we have evidence rain coming from condensation.
Me: Look at this website. These guys say condensation is bunk. Pretty soon those ‘scientists’ that believe in condensation are gonna backpedal.
RD: But many scientists who accept condensation are Christians. Condensation doesn’t even conflict with your faith.
Me: They say they’re Christians, but real Christians don’t accept condensation.
RD: I’m just gonna go…
Did Random Dude lack faith? Or did he see me saying something obviously false and think, “If this what Christians believe, they’re nuts. And if they’re so wrong with condensation which we have physical evidence of, how could they be right on the unseen spiritual side?” Same principle applies to evolution.
M
mVitus
Guest
if only we had some guy with a role of authority, something like a Vicar of Christ, to sort out this question. Oh wait, isn’t that Pope Francis?
M
mVitus
Guest
I’d point to the geneologies of Jesus as emphasizing the important parts, and not an exhaustive list. (I mean, we do have two and they differ a little.) If Adam was born of a non-true human, she didn’t matter that much for us. The important part was God who gave him his soul. The first true human soul. To take a modern example, biologically speaking I came from my parents. But I am a child of God, as are all of us. And if I were to say to someone, “I am God’s child.” I would not be saying God and my mother yeah at all, but mean it in the spiritual sense.
B
bobperk
Guest
In parag. 81 of Laudato Si, Pope Francis writes, “Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution
of other open systems.”
He uses “even if” as a way to accompany evolutionists into the fold of the Catholic Faith. He’s really saying, “Look, this process of evolution is kinda crazy…but even if we entertain the notion that it is true. . .” BUT the Holy Father is NOT saying
He just realizes that his pastoral approach includes those who may accept evolution.
M
mVitus
Guest
We may have (big) disagreements on the science, but thank you for being one of the only Creationists in this thread to openly accept that evolution, even of the human body, can be compatible with Catholic faith.
Last edited:
- Status