Christian Author Ray Comfort Bashes The Vatican

[Steeltemplar]

And in any event, as that blog post from Jimmy Akin says: “Since his time many Catholic theologians have conjectured that there are ways in which polygenism can be reconciled with original sin (e.g., saying that Adam and Eve represent the early human community which as a whole turned away from God at the beginning of our history and thus committed original sin, passing it on to us).”

So it’s not just Grisez, but “many Catholic theologians”

I think you need to understand that I do not care what “many Catholic theologians” think.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Another note:

The Catholic Answers page on the subject carries an Imprimatur. It is authorized as being free from doctrinal error:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

I think that the body of evidence in the Catholic faith indicates that theistic evolution is perfectly compatible with Catholicism. However, it also indicates that Adam and Eve were real persons, whose original sin we inherit. The concept of original sin does not even make sense in any other context.

But I do not believe either that this teaching is a rejection of science. It is a rejection of one scientific theory. And if the scientific and academic world were more open, then perhaps more theories would be available.

You have to remember that science is not some magical bias-free place.

 

[DavWan]

Here’s the relevant part from Germain Grisez who is a respected Catholic theologian. BTW “mythic” doesn’t mean fictional.

wayofthelordjesus.org/cmp.cfm?page=cmp14f

So take it up with Germain Grisez!

You mean the Grisez you took out of context? The one who says:

For the sake of argument, the theory of polygenism, according to which the minimal human community must have been a sizable group, is granted here.

“For the sake of argument” doesn’t mean he believes it, you know.

We do have to believe that Adam and Eve existed, and that the Human Race with a soul descended from them, and original sin came from them. The teaching of Pius XII is not old. John Paul II confirmed it.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

1. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Any claim of Polygenesis has to conform to the teaching of the Church.

Anyone who wants to use the word Myth had better be sure they use it as the Church understands it. Anyone who uses it as “not true” uses it wrong.

 

[punisherthunder]

I saw the debate between Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron against some atheists on ABC news a couple years ago. Their arguments to prove the existence of God were both weak and childish.

Put both of these idiots in a room with 2 priests and have them debate this topic…Comfort/Cameron would be shredded…

 

[losh14]

“But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus,” added Comfort. "That belief reveals a shallow understanding of the claims of atheistic evolution. God gave us six senses, and the sixth one is common sense."

*“The Vatican, in essence, is saying, ‘Don’t believe Jesus or Genesis. Believe Darwin instead,’” Comfort said. “God made man in his own image, and God is not a primate. In the name of diversity, the Vatican is encouraging atheism, and that’s a terrible betrayal of Christianity.” *

False dichotomy. Evolution is not a simplistic theory that states: “All life evolved from amino acid chains that spontaneously became life and so God goes away.” Biologists will tell you that there are evolutions that have been observed and evolutions that have not. We’ve seen species diverge into non-intermingleable subspecies. We’ve not yet seen monkeys become humans (and probably won’t). The point of Genesis is not the how but the why of Creation. And evolutionary biology cannot answer the why, but only the how, and even then to a limited point. So the two do not conflict.

Comfort’s perspective comes from his Literalist view of Scripture that would posit Genesis as not only religious truth but also as scientific truth. We (as Catholics) take Scripture to be Scripture, not a textbook on natural history. We know, and can mathematically demonstrate, that the earth goes around the sun. But in Joshua God makes the sun stand still, or so says the book of Joshua in as many words. Note that this passage was not meant as an explanation of gravitational themodynamics but rather as a demonstration of God’s power. I mean, Joshua could’ve diagrammed in the sand how Newtonian physics and General Relativity allow for it appear as though the sun rises and sets when it is really the earth that moves, but the point would be lost.

Also, Comfort is wrong - we have five senses as well as mathematical and logical intellect. Sensation uses more primal parts of the brain and is involuntary. Cognition, on the other hand, is far more voluntary (as we can see demonstrated in absentia in Comfort’s claism above).

 

[Rabbity]

I saw the debate between Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron against some atheists on ABC news a couple years ago. Their arguments to prove the existence of God were both weak and childish.

Put both of these idiots in a room with 2 priests and have them debate this topic…Comfort/Cameron would be shredded…

He’s just ridiculous.

He posts comments on his facebook page and invites people to participate in a debate, but if someone posts something he doesn’t like he doesn’t debate them, he screams at them and bans them. After everyone is gone and there’s no one to fight with and the crickets are chirping, he unbans everyone and starts the process over again and escalates the craziness in the process.

He and Kirk are a neverending source of comedy to us atheists.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Here’s Ray Comfort in action!

 

[Lucky7]

This thread is 4 years old.