Creation or Evolution

[beeliner]

1. The Catholic Church tells me, no divine providence, no evolution. It’s clear, it’s simple. That’s what I believe.

2a. And by the way, there is no scientific paper or document that attributes any role to God.

2b. That is and will continue to be the whole reason for the debate.

2c. For Catholics, God’s involvement is critical.

1. Nearly all religion, which would certanily include Catholicism, tells us no God, no ANYTHING. Why single out evolution? The point is, evolution, like everything else material, occurs due to natural rather then supernatural processes. It is fine to acknowledge a Creator, but by doing so you are crossing the line, so to speak, to the supernatural, on which science is silent.

2a. See 1. Obviously. If one were to do so, it would no longer be scientific but religious.

2b. On the contrary, that is completely irrelevant to the ‘debate’. It’s difficult to see how pure science on one side and pure religion on the other can even be so characterized. The difficulty - and the dishonesty - occurs when the attempt is made to present religion as science.

2c. Why restrict it to Catholics? Which denominations do NOT believe that? I’m not saying that there are none, I’m just asking. I can’t think of any right offhand.

 

[beeliner]

1. There’s not a single dissenter? Wow. That seems like an exaggeration to me.
2. But then, if anyone who disagrees with the “facts” of evolution is automatically branded as a “creationist” who is bearing false witness, as beeliner accuses above, that would be a powerful incentive not to disagree with beeliner.
3. Well, at least you still have a sense of humor

1. I don’t know of one. If you can name a contemporary scientist who believes that species do not evolve due to natural selection and other natural processes, and has no overriding religious agenda, please name that person and give a link to his/her work.
2. Well, we are talking about two different things here. I was referring to misquoting other posters in a dishonest attempt to support one’s position. I did not make the claim that poster reggieM attributed to me.

The authors and publishers of ‘creationist’ material, however, such as is used in fundamentalist so-called “Christian schools”, are doing exactly what you suggest. They are fully aware that everything they publish AS SCIENCE is not. That would certainly qualify as false witness. Publishing the same material as religion, and clearly labeled as such, would be a different thing entirely.

1. It helps.

 

[edwest2]

Science is a concept, it has no voice, but scientists can and do speak. They cross the line all the time.

The thing you, beeliner, fail to understand is that science is only part of the whole picture. The Catholic Church provides the rest of the answer. Your focus on science is incomplete. It ignores the other areas of reason that we, as Catholics, still need. This means God is assigned a role in evolution. This cannot be ignored by Catholics. That is why everyone, scientist and nonscientist, believer and unbeliever, waits on pronouncements from the Church about science.

Or perhaps I need to be more blunt: It doesn’t matter if science is silent or not about God and His role in evolution. For me, the Catholic Church alone, has the whole answer about evolution. God was involved. Period. End of story.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Gee whiz. Even hecd2 admitted that he might be wrong. It seems that the atheist has more humility than many of the Catholic evolutionists.

Alec (hecd2) might be wrong? Perhaps a quick review is necessary:

[msg.444 -please reread]

Gee whiz ricmat, you called Alec an atheist. Well, he may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him. And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Of course, those of us, like myself and others on Catholic.com believe in Christ and know about the sacraments and what they entail. I’ve taught them in the past for many a year to Catholic youth and am amazed by how many adults still don’t understand the sacraments.

Code of Canon Law
BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
TITLE I. BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
**
BAPTISM AND CHRISTIAN LIFE**
Jean Evenou
«Regenerated as “Children in the Son”, the baptised are inseparably joined together as “members of Christ and members of the Church” (…) Through the sacrament Jesus unites the baptised to his death so as to unite the recipient to his resurrection (cf Rm 6,3-5). The “old man” is stripped away for reclothing with the “new man”, that is with Jesus himself (…) The result is that “we though many, we are one body in Christ” (Rom 12,5)» (Christifideles laici, n. 12).

Saint Paul’s affirmation: «For as many of you as were baptised into Christ, have put on Christ» (Gal 3,27), has become a baptismal hymn in the West (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, n 67), as it is traditionally in the East and is found as Communion antiphon on Saturday of the Easter Octave.

In our day, the different confessions of Christians have become once again aware that, despite their divisions, Baptism is a point of unity for all who believe in Christ. «Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic church» (CCC, n 1271). Since Baptism makes us members of Christ’s Body and Christ cannot be divided (cf 1 Cor 1,13), it is also the basis of our hope for that visible unity of Christians, wished for by Christ himself: «That they may be one» (Jn 17,21). This is underlined by the Holy Father: «From an ecumenical point of view, this will certainly be a very important year for Christians to look together to Christ the one Lord, deepening our commitments to become one in Him in accordance with his prayer to the Father» (TMA 41).

The anointing of the heads of the newly baptised with chrism is accompanied with a declaration which shows that Baptism in the foundation of Christian life: «God (…) has freed you from sin and willed that you be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, uniting you with his people, he himself consecrates you with the chrism of salvation so that as part of Christ, priest, king and prophet you may be members of his body for life everlasting». With Baptism the whole of our existence is called to become living witness.
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.

Oh, I see Barbarian below. I’ve haven’t read through all the posts. I ask two simple questions and get boomeraged with twice as many. Jesus was always praying to his Father for help but he was not “answering to a higher authority”.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, do you accept God is THE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

I’ve told people that, several times here. Are you disagreeing with me?

Do you believe in a Truine God? I would really appreciate you answering my two questions.

If you’re a Catholic, as I am, there isn’t any other way, is there? Of course we accept the Triune God. What bothers you about that?

And I do think I made it very clear in my last message that Jesus doesn’t need to answer to a higher authority!

But He did…

Mark 14:36 36 And he saith: Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Barbarian, I recall you mentioning a while back that you see God in everything.

I hope not. I intended to write that I saw God’s creation in nature.

Do you?

Yes. But that’s not a scientific statement, of course.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. I don’t know of one. If you can name a contemporary scientist who believes that species do not evolve due to natural selection and other natural processes, and has no overriding religious agenda, please name that person and give a link to his/her work.

I suspect there are still a few Lamarckists out there, but I can’t think of one.

 

[The_Barbarian]

As an aside, as I’ve stated many times, I personally believe in “most” of evolution.

That might be part of the problem. You should never “believe in” any scientific theory. It should always stand or fall on evidence, not faith.

The only part I don’t buy is that all the mutations happened randomly.

Which means some evidence is required at this point.

And I’ve been branded as a lying young earth creationist as well.

If you have feathers and quack people will think you are a duck.

Tell us about the specific mutations you think weren’t random, and show us the evidence for this.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Your problem appears to be a reliance on science and science only. It is a fact, just like a scientific fact, that God is required to make “scientific” evolution work. It does not, as Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, tells us, happen without God.

It cannot exist without divine providence. That is a statement of fact.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Alec (hecd2) might be wrong? Perhaps a quick review is necessary:

Gee whiz ricmat, you called Alec an atheist. Well, he may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him. And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Of course, those of us, like myself and others on Catholic.com believe in Christ and know about the sacraments and what they entail. I’ve taught them in the past for many a year to Catholic youth and am amazed by how many adults still don’t understand the sacraments.

Code of Canon Law
BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
TITLE I. BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
**
BAPTISM AND CHRISTIAN LIFE**
Jean Evenou
«Regenerated as “Children in the Son”, the baptised are inseparably joined together as “members of Christ and members of the Church” (…) Through the sacrament Jesus unites the baptised to his death so as to unite the recipient to his resurrection (cf Rm 6,3-5). The “old man” is stripped away for reclothing with the “new man”, that is with Jesus himself (…) The result is that “we though many, we are one body in Christ” (Rom 12,5)» (Christifideles laici, n. 12).

Saint Paul’s affirmation: «For as many of you as were baptised into Christ, have put on Christ» (Gal 3,27), has become a baptismal hymn in the West (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, n 67), as it is traditionally in the East and is found as Communion antiphon on Saturday of the Easter Octave.

In our day, the different confessions of Christians have become once again aware that, despite their divisions, Baptism is a point of unity for all who believe in Christ. «Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic church» (CCC, n 1271). Since Baptism makes us members of Christ’s Body and Christ cannot be divided (cf 1 Cor 1,13), it is also the basis of our hope for that visible unity of Christians, wished for by Christ himself: «That they may be one» (Jn 17,21). This is underlined by the Holy Father: «From an ecumenical point of view, this will certainly be a very important year for Christians to look together to Christ the one Lord, deepening our commitments to become one in Him in accordance with his prayer to the Father» (TMA 41).

The anointing of the heads of the newly baptised with chrism is accompanied with a declaration which shows that Baptism in the foundation of Christian life: «God (…) has freed you from sin and willed that you be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, uniting you with his people, he himself consecrates you with the chrism of salvation so that as part of Christ, priest, king and prophet you may be members of his body for life everlasting». With Baptism the whole of our existence is called to become living witness.
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.

Wildleafblower, I thought that (at one time at least), Alec’s profile listed him as atheist. And also, I thought he mentioned it himself. If I am in error about this, then I offer my apologies.

It seems to me that atheism is a declaration not of baptismal status, but rather a statement of belief. If one declares that God does not exist, you are an atheist.

I applaud your efforts to be “in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth…” but denial of the existence of God or denial of his interaction with his children (if that is what Alec believes) doesn’t seem to me to conform to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.

Again, if Alec believes in the existence of God, which of course atheists do not believe, then both of you please accept my apology.

 

[anthony022071]

Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes.

And that is the same assumption as philosophical naturalism,as found in the writings of Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne.

In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.

No, you’re wrong. I highlighted the differences so you could find them easier. Methodological naturalism limits itself to the physical universe without denying the existence of the supernatural.

Philosophical naturalism doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of the supernatural either. It rejects the use of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena,and claims that only natural causes should be used to explain them. Just like methodological naturalism.

Nope. Methodological naturalism is just a way of investigating nature, without taking any stand on the supernatural.

That’s a silly statement,considering that methodological naturalism rejects the supernatural in investigating nature.

Ontological naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. If you can’t get this, you’ll never understand science.

You still don’t get the fact that I’m not talking about the belief that nature is all there is.
You were the one who brought up ontological naturalism,not me.
I was talking about the naturalism of the early experimental scientists,not that of Carl Sagan.
Ontological naturalism is more commonly called scientific pantheism.

Learn about it here:
**Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature – a noninterventionist creator – who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. **
allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

If deists believe in a god of nature,why did the 18th century deists reject Spinoza’s beliefs as absurd? A god who is merely a first cause cannot also be a god of nature.

Which is macroevolution;

No,the speciation process does not amount to large-scale evolution.

“microevolution” is variation within a species.

Yes,of course.

That’s what speciation is. Incidentally, most creationists also accept that speciation is reproductive isolation.

Reproductive isolation is a factor in speciation,not the definition of speciation.

See post 508.

 

[beeliner]

That is why everyone, scientist and nonscientist, believer and unbeliever, waits on pronouncements from the Church about science.

LOL! I wasn’t aware of that. Nor was I even aware of the Church making such pronouncements. Can you name some, let’s say, Jewish scientists who wait on pins and needles for the Church’s latest scientific dogma to be proclaimed?

Those that you have mentioned, e.g. that God has a hand in evolution, are strictly religion. It’s good to see, however, that you finally acknowledge that the Church allows that evolution occurs.

 

[edwest2]

You misunderstand.

There is no strictly science. There is no strictly religion.

Until you accept that, then this debate will never resolve.

Science does not exist in a vacuum. Its conclusions do not exist in a vacuum. And in the case of human origins, it is not plumbing or math.

If you should ever accept the Church’s position that science too narrowly focuses itself and ignores areas of reason that we still need, this debate will not resolve.

I do not accept scientific, textbook evolution as the whole answer. God is part of the equation. That is regarded by the Catholic Church as a fact no less real than any scientific fact.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

(msg. 521)

[msg. 515]
Gee whiz. Even hecd2 admitted that he might be wrong. It seems that the atheist has more humility than many of the Catholic evolutionists.

Alec (hecd2) might be wrong? Perhaps a quick review is necessary:

[msg.444 -please reread]

Gee whiz ricmat, you called Alec an atheist. Well, he may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him. And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Of course, those of us, like myself and others on Catholic.com believe in Christ and know about the sacraments and what they entail. I’ve taught them in the past for many a year to Catholic youth and am amazed by how many adults still don’t understand the sacraments.

Code of Canon Law
BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
TITLE I. BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
**
BAPTISM AND CHRISTIAN LIFE**
Jean Evenou
«Regenerated as “Children in the Son”, the baptised are inseparably joined together as “members of Christ and members of the Church” (…) Through the sacrament Jesus unites the baptised to his death so as to unite the recipient to his resurrection (cf Rm 6,3-5). The “old man” is stripped away for reclothing with the “new man”, that is with Jesus himself (…) The result is that “we though many, we are one body in Christ” (Rom 12,5)» (Christifideles laici, n. 12).

Saint Paul’s affirmation: «For as many of you as were baptised into Christ, have put on Christ» (Gal 3,27), has become a baptismal hymn in the West (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, n 67), as it is traditionally in the East and is found as Communion antiphon on Saturday of the Easter Octave.

In our day, the different confessions of Christians have become once again aware that, despite their divisions, Baptism is a point of unity for all who believe in Christ. «Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic church» (CCC, n 1271). Since Baptism makes us members of Christ’s Body and Christ cannot be divided (cf 1 Cor 1,13), it is also the basis of our hope for that visible unity of Christians, wished for by Christ himself: «That they may be one» (Jn 17,21). This is underlined by the Holy Father: «From an ecumenical point of view, this will certainly be a very important year for Christians to look together to Christ the one Lord, deepening our commitments to become one in Him in accordance with his prayer to the Father» (TMA 41).

The anointing of the heads of the newly baptised with chrism is accompanied with a declaration which shows that Baptism in the foundation of Christian life: «God (…) has freed you from sin and willed that you be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, uniting you with his people, he himself consecrates you with the chrism of salvation so that as part of Christ, priest, king and prophet you may be members of his body for life everlasting». With Baptism the whole of our existence is called to become living witness.
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.

[snip]

Ricmat replies to my message 521 but as you can see below distorts the truth of what I originally posted by removing my msg.444:

(msg. 526)
wildleafblower;3895841:

Alec (hecd2) might be wrong? Perhaps a quick review is necessary:
[Ricmat has removed my msg.444 from my original post 521]

Gee whiz ricmat, you called Alec an atheist. Well, he may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him. And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Of course, those of us, like myself and others on Catholic.com believe in Christ and know about the sacraments and what they entail. I’ve taught them in the past for many a year to Catholic youth and am amazed by how many adults still don’t understand the sacraments.

Code of Canon Law
BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
TITLE I. BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
**
BAPTISM AND CHRISTIAN LIFE**
Jean Evenou
«Regenerated as “Children in the Son”, the baptised are inseparably joined together as “members of Christ and members of the Church” (…) Through the sacrament Jesus unites the baptised to his death so as to unite the recipient to his resurrection (cf Rm 6,3-5). The “old man” is stripped away for reclothing with the “new man”, that is with Jesus himself (…) The result is that “we though many, we are one body in Christ” (Rom 12,5)» (Christifideles laici, n. 12).

Saint Paul’s affirmation: «For as many of you as were baptised into Christ, have put on Christ» (Gal 3,27), has become a baptismal hymn in the West (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, n 67), as it is traditionally in the East and is found as Communion antiphon on Saturday of the Easter Octave.
**

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.

Wildleafblower, I thought that (at one time at least), Alec’s profile listed him as atheist. And also, I thought he mentioned it himself. If I am in error about this, then I offer my apologies.

It seems to me that atheism is a declaration not of baptismal status, but rather a statement of belief. If one declares that God does not exist, you are an atheist.

I applaud your efforts to be “in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth…” but denial of the existence of God or denial of his interaction with his children (if that is what Alec believes) doesn’t seem to me to conform to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.

Again, if Alec believes in the existence of God, which of course atheists do not believe, then both of you please accept my apology.

Ricmat, in your message 526, you’ve distorted the truth of what I posted in message 521 by omitting my message 444 which also confirms you’re lack of sincerity and charity when dialoging with me. This is the second time you have done this: refer to my message 444 too.

I should mention Ricmat that I have many friends whose husbands are Catholic that do attend a Roman Catholic Church but don’t believe in God. The priests don’t condemn them or lecture them as you do Ricmat. They are in full communion with the Church by their baptismal rites. Through baptism a person becomes the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat replies to my message 521 but as you can see below distorts the truth of what I originally posted by removing my msg.444:

Ricmat, in your message 526, you’ve distorted the truth of what I posted in message 521 by omitting my message 444 which also confirms you’re lack of sincerity and charity when dialoging with me. This is the second time you have done this: refer to my message 444 too.

I should mention Ricmat that I have many friends whose husbands are Catholic that do attend a Roman Catholic Church but don’t believe in God. The priests don’t condemn them or lecture them as you do Ricmat. They are in full communion with the Church by their baptismal rites. Through baptism a person becomes the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Wildleafblower, when I click the quote button e.g. in your post 521, I used verbatim what the CAF system generated. I didn’t delete anything manually. Perhaps this is a setup issue, but whenever a quote is embedded in another quote, as was the case you mention, when I click quote, all that appears is the “outer” quote - in this case, post 521. Post 444 doesn’t get displayed.

in responding in THIS quote, I deleted nothing manually, the above quote is EVERYTHING that the system generated.

In fact, looking at your posts, I’m not even sure how you get the quotes embedded in quotes thing…

I have an idea. Rather than posting extensive multiple long posts and saying that I deleted something, why not just say what point you were trying to make, and how you think I responded to that. I’ll be glad to discuss with you whatever it is you want, but a better method would be to start a new post with only the pertinent information.

I disagree with you on your definition of “communion”, and I also think that you need a priest that lectures you for not believing in God ( or for being too prideful). Note: I’m not condemning anyone, since God alone knows what is in people’s hearts. But admonishing the sinner is one of the works of mercy that all Catholics are called to do. But please excuse me if I have done this in an indelicate manner.

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower, when I click the quote button e.g. in your post 521, I used verbatim what the CAF system generated. I didn’t delete anything manually. Perhaps this is a setup issue, but whenever a quote is embedded in another quote, as was the case you mention, when I click quote, all that appears is the “outer” quote - in this case, post 521. Post 444 doesn’t get displayed.

in responding in THIS quote, I deleted nothing manually, the above quote is EVERYTHING that the system generated.

Hi ricmat I wrote, “Ricmat, in your message 526, you’ve **distorted the truth **of what I posted in message 521 by **omitting **my message 444 which also confirms you’re lack of sincerity and charity when dialoging with me. This is the second time you have done this: refer to my message 444 too.”

In fact, looking at your posts, I’m not even sure how you get the quotes embedded in quotes thing…

I have an idea. Rather than posting extensive multiple long posts and saying that I deleted something, why not just say what point you were trying to make, and how you think I responded to that. I’ll be glad to discuss with you whatever it is you want, but a better method would be to start a new post with only the pertinent information.

Where did I use the word “deleted” in my message 530? What you’re suggesting doesn’t agree with me.

I disagree with you on your definition of “communion”, and I also think that you need a priest that lectures you for not believing in God ( or for being too prideful). Note: I’m not condemning anyone, since God alone knows what is in people’s hearts. But admonishing the sinner is one of the works of mercy that all Catholics are called to do. But please excuse me if I have done this in an indelicate manner.

Ricmat again you are distorting the truth of my message 530. Ricmat, you appear to have a difficult time comprehending written text. Ricmat, you write to me, “I also think that you need a priest that lectures you for not believing in God ( or for being too prideful). Note: I’m not condemning anyone, since God alone knows what is in people’s hearts. But admonishing the sinner is one of the works of mercy that all Catholics are called to do. But please excuse me if I have done this in an indelicate manner.” Ricmat, I believe in God and never said I didn’t believe in God and quite frankly I don’t go prowling around looking for sinners! And please do reread my message 530, “I should mention Ricmat that I have many friends [girlfriends] whose husbands are Catholic that do attend a Roman Catholic Church but don’t believe in God. The priests don’t condemn them or lecture them as you do Ricmat. [The priests have stated the following:]They are in full communion with the Church by their baptismal rites. Through baptism a person becomes the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.” Ricmat, I try my best to be a lady but you are pushing the envelope so to speak. Let’s give it a rest.

God willing next time I post here it will be about EVOLUTION. Ah yeah, Gregor Mendal. I got a ton of news about him. Love that Roman Catholic guy!

 

[ricmat]

Hi ricmat I wrote, “Ricmat, in your message 526, you’ve **distorted the truth **of what I posted in message 521 by **omitting **my message 444 which also confirms you’re lack of sincerity and charity when dialoging with me. This is the second time you have done this: refer to my message 444 too.”

Where did I use the word “deleted” in my message 530? What you’re suggesting doesn’t agree with me.

You said “Ricmat replies to my message 521 but as you can see below distorts the truth of what I originally posted by removing my msg.444:”

OK - I said “deleted” and you said “removed.” And then you said above “omitted”.

Why don’t we start over. Say what it is that you think I disagree with, and I’ll tell you what I think. As I said in my post #445, I said “Although we disagree on some things, I admire your faith, and your love. I believe that “random mutations” were not all “random”, and you believe that they were. So we can agree to disagree there. I like you wildleafblower (although I sometimes have difficulty understanding what you are getting at in your posts).”

Ricmat again you are distorting the truth of my message 530. Ricmat, you appear to have a difficult time comprehending written text.

As I said above in post 445, I do have trouble with your posts.

Ricmat, you write to me, “I also think that you need a priest that lectures you for not believing in God ( or for being too prideful). Note: I’m not condemning anyone, since God alone knows what is in people’s hearts. But admonishing the sinner is one of the works of mercy that all Catholics are called to do. But please excuse me if I have done this in an indelicate manner.” Ricmat, I believe in God and never said I didn’t believe in God and quite frankly I don’t go prowling around looking for sinners! And please do reread my message 530, “I should mention Ricmat that I have many friends [girlfriends] whose husbands are Catholic that do attend a Roman Catholic Church but don’t believe in God. The priests don’t condemn them or lecture them as you do Ricmat. [The priests have stated the following:]They are in full communion with the Church by their baptismal rites. Through baptism a person becomes the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

God willing next time I post here it will be about EVOLUTION.

I never said you didn’t believe in God. When I word “you” as in the above quote, I’m referring to the priests talking to those who don’t believe in God (your friends), whom he says are in full communion with the Church. You (as in “society in general”) can’t refuse to believe in God, and be in communion with the Church. I’ll rephrase the previous sentence and say it this way for clarification,“One can’t refuse to believe in God, and be in communion with the Church.”

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the above statement to be true.

And I’m not prowling around looking for sinners, when one says “I don’t believe in God”, I don’t think their Catholic friends should encourage them in this violation of the 1st commandment. And yes, it is a sin. I’m not a theologian, but I know that much.

WLB - I DO like you, as I said in post #445 and elsewhere. I think you are overreacting to a perceived slight. Really, I have high regard for you and don’t mean to put you down in any way.

 

[beeliner]

1. You misunderstand.
2. There is no strictly science. There is no strictly religion.
3. Until you accept that, then this debate will never resolve.
4. Science does not exist in a vacuum. Its conclusions do not exist in a vacuum. And in the case of human origins, it is not plumbing or math.
5. If you should ever accept the Church’s position that science too narrowly focuses itself and ignores areas of reason that we still need, this debate will not resolve.
6. I do not accept scientific, textbook evolution as the whole answer. God is part of the equation. That is regarded by the Catholic Church as a fact no less real than any scientific fact.

1. That may well be true! I’m sorry, your edship, I don’t like to be put in the position of appearing to ridicule the Church, but your interpretation of Catholicism is so bizarre that your posts are difficult to read with a straight face. Please clarify your statement that…

edwest2:

…everyone, scientist and nonscientist, believer and unbeliever, waits on pronouncements from the Church about science.

I am a believer and also have a scientific mind, but I have never ‘waited on’ any such pronouncement, nor has anyone else that I know. I have been waiting most of my life for my Chruch to make more realistic pronouncements about several other matters, beyond the scope of this thread, but pronouncements about science? Can you name a few?

1. Those are just semantics, subject to interpretation. That is true and that is not true - it depends on what you mean. The laws of nature and science are the same for the devout believer and for the atheist. The doctrines of the world’s various religions vary enormously.
2. Then I guess it’s likely to go on for a while.
3. As a matter of fact, it does exist there. Most of the universe is a vacuum, or nearly so, and the laws of nature certainly apply there just as in your back yard.
4. Lemme get this straight: If I should ever accept the Church’s position, the debate will never resolve? You’d better explain that one.
5. That’s fine, ed, and it may be even more real. The fact remains, it’s religion, not science, until an empirical connection between the two can be established.

 

[edwest2]

Aside from the numerous threads posted here about creation and evolution, you’ve missed the numerous comments across the internet denouncing the Church for denying or questioning anything about evolutionary theory? With over one billion adherents, with some registered voters, it’s too big a target not to miss. There was, for example, a furor over this:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

What you are ignoring is the actual connection between God and real life for Catholics. It is not allegorical or hypothetical or philosophical - it is real. Miracles still happen today. We call God the living God for a reason.

Science is only a tool, God is the first cause. God comes before science.

If you don’t get that, fine. But the Church condemns things science does not just on religious grounds but on sound scientific grounds. When the Church tells me that evolution cannot exist without divine providence - that is a fact.

You can explain the science behind evolution in minute detail, but what concerns me, and the entire Church, is the God behind evolution. Not a symbolic God or a “religion only” God but an active, causal agent in the Creation of man. The rational mind behind creation.

To put it a different way, as long as only science is given as the only answer - it will be incompatible with Catholic beliefs. No, I’m not recommending adding God to science books. I’m pointing out the critical and necessary role of God. Since science is supposed to be silent on this issue, the Church is doing a service to the entire human race by telling us the rest of the truth.

Evolution as presented as random (mutation) and contingent (natural selection) does not ground the dignity of the human person.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your problem appears to be a reliance on science and science only.

That’s a rather bizarre claim, particularly when I’ve repeatedly reminded you that science is a very limited method, applicable only to nature.

It is a fact, just like a scientific fact, that God is required to make “scientific” evolution work.

No, it’s a fact, but not a scientific fact, since science has no way to determine something like that.

If you can’t accept that, then both science and the Church’s teachings are beyond your ken.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

I think you have it reversed. Science is only one form of reason, there are others. God is the baseline, not science.

I hope you haven’t fallen for the mistaken notion that science somehow supersedes the Word of God. Or for the idea “that truth cannot contradict truth” goes only in one direction and not both directions.

God bless,
Ed