Creation vs. Evolution poll II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[1858](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1858.htm’)😉 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

[1859](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1859.htm’)😉 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

[1860](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1860.htm’)😉 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

[1861](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1861.htm’)😉 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

[1863](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1863.htm’)😉 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134
 
If something gives me no logical reason to beleive in it, then I shouldnt have to be punished by it if it were real.
 
Science easily shows a world without god. Read hawking, read something other than the bible. Ive read more than my share of books.

If the evidence shows god isn’t real, then why should I be worried about being punished by him.

According to your laws, Ill be fine either way.

And so, if there isnt enough evidence for evolution, and there is enough for creation, show me.

That is what this forum is about is it not?
 
40.png
ArisSlatr:
Faith is but beleif without evidence. This is common knowledge.

Evidence shows that creation makes no sense.

Contradition.
The evidence we can see and experience is limited. This is common knowledge too.

You are correct about faith. That is what faith is all about.
 
Not if you choose to stay ignorant of God. The difference is I am content and hopeful about my faith. What are you certain about?.
 
40.png
ArisSlatr:
Chirdren also lack the reasoning skills we have.

You would reply with, well we lack the reasoning skills god does.

The key is that since we are adults, we do comprehend what is fair and what is not. Just becuase something may not seem fair. I think it is safe to say that anyone would agree that you dont deserve eternal damnation for adultery, or some other sin.

Do I deserve a life punishment for stealing a mars bar?

I can’t comprehend gods will? You’re doing it again.
Perhaps looking at it another way might help:

One has a choice for Love or not. When we die, I think we die in the spiritual state we ended our life. We exist in that state for eternity. If we chose to turn away from God (Love), we are in hell. If we chose to turn to God in humility we will be facing pure Love (in heaven.)

peace
 
You are probably right that you have no reason to believe. It’s well beyond that. Keep searching and open your mind and heart to God and then you may have a reason. We will try to help.

Interesting you should mention Hawking - I think I remember reading about him acknowledging a supreme being??? I will try to find it to see if I was right.

You didn’t answer what you were certain about.
 
Not if you choose to stay ignorant of God. The difference is I am content and hopeful about my faith. What are you certain about?.
I am certain god doesn’t exist. I am certain that the evidece point closer to the truth. The truth being that evolution is correct.

You call it ignorance even though I’ve studied for years. How dare you tell me that. I’m not insulted, just a little sad at such a statement.

Well, I think I’ve more than proven my point, and Ive been here for hours, good luck.
 
40.png
ArisSlatr:
I am certain god doesn’t exist. I am certain that the evidece point closer to the truth. The truth being that evolution is correct.

You call it ignorance even though I’ve studied for years. How dare you tell me that. I’m not insulted, just a little sad at such a statement.
Not judging you as an ignorant person, just ignorant of God.

(ignorant - unaware, ill informed)

I don’t think anything has been proven.
 
Buffalo, ChrisW, ruined the thread, its their fault. 😃

Please guys, save the mortal vs. venial sin, eternal damnation, “the atheists are going to hell”, and the existence of God topics for other threads. You are basically letting the atheists run over you with a steamroller by denying evolution, being ignorant of science, and in response quoting the Bible and Catechism back to them. I don’t like “presuppositional apologetics” myself for that reason. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of this from Catholic apologist John Chapman, “…but one feels as though one were using a steamhammer to kill a flea…”

The steamhammer is science, the flea is quoting the Bible as a response. Fairly weak in my opinion. There is good evidence for evolution, and Christians need to deal with it, not ignore or deny it. More the Reformed style “presuppositional apologetics.” Bad strategy. :cool:

Phil P
 
Only trying to debate atheistic evolution. Only took the thread where it went. Sorry.

I do have a question. Why are so many atheists in this Catholic forum?
 
Buffalo << Only trying to debate atheistic evolution. Only took the thread where it went. Sorry. >>

Didn’t want to sound harsh, you and ChrisW weren’t doing too bad. But the thread gets cluttered. The scientific evidence for evolution is a separate question from the existence of God. Evolution is not atheistic if you listen to John Paul II, and the other examples of Christians I’ve mentioned who accept it.

Should have started a new thread when the other theological topics and objections came up. Quoting the Catechism is good to get the Catholic doctrine straight, but it tends to clutter up the thread. It was interesting though…

But please don’t deny evolution when there is good evidence for it. :o Christians are just shooting themselves in the feet by ignoring or denying modern science. Read William Lane Craig, he uses the scientific evidence for evolution and the problem of evil as further evidence for the existence of God. His many debates with atheists are here.

Phil P
 
40.png
buffalo:
I do have a question. Why are so many atheists in this Catholic forum?
I think we originally came to counter the anti-atheist bigotry in some of the other threads, but we couldn’t leave once we saw many of the ignorant posts regarding atheism, science, evolution, and so forth.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Only trying to debate atheistic evolution.
You still don’t seem to realise that there’s not really such a thing as atheistic evolution. All science is (literally) atheistic, in that it does not require, anticipate or look for supernatural explanations. This is because supernatural explanations cannot be verified – by definition if they could, then they would be natural!

(I would further contend that there is no such thing as the supernatural – wait, wait, it’s not what you think 😉 – because, ‘natural’ is whatever the world is like. If the world did indeed include deities, occasional suspensions of the normal running of things etc, then science would have to investigate them, and if demonstrated, would have to include them in the whole picture. However strange and irregular things sometimes were, that would be ‘how the world is’. Therefore, there is no supernatural, only natural.)

Therefore, science comments not at all on the existence of gods, any more than it comments on gremlins, goblins, ghosts (holy or otherwise), spirits (ditto), sprites spooks or spectres. Because they are unverifiable, it simply does not include them in its explanations. So no matter how likely or unlikely they are, this does not mean that they do not exist.

So, there is no ‘atheistic evolution’. There is simply natural evolution, with or without gods. Maybe there are gods, maybe not, but we’ll not find them with science, so we don’t try. The only sort of god that evolution refutes is one who proponents insist did his creating in one particular way.

And that is why evolution is not against Christianity… or shouldn’t be, provided Christians aren’t stupid enough to insist on the myths of Bronze Age goat-herders being literally true. (I had thought that most don’t; certainly they didn’t in my Catholic school days. But several on these boards make me wonder. :()
I do have a question. Why are so many atheists in this Catholic forum?
No idea about ‘so many’. But I at least am here to counter creationist lies and misinformation. I had thought that evolution was not controversial among Catholics… but I clearly thought wrongly.

TTFN, Oolon
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Buffalo << Only trying to debate atheistic evolution. Only took the thread where it went. Sorry. >>

Didn’t want to sound harsh, you and ChrisW weren’t doing too bad. But the thread gets cluttered. The scientific evidence for evolution is a separate question from the existence of God. Evolution is not atheistic if you listen to John Paul II, and the other examples of Christians I’ve mentioned who accept it.

Phil P
The Pope’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Science on the *“Theories of Evolution” *has been mistranslated and misinterpreted. This twisting of language is common amoungst the anti-god forces today. Just as they have twisted the First Amendment of the Constitution around to reverse its original meaning they have twisted the Pope’s intentions around to contradict church teachings.

The unraveling of this mess is a quagmire of misunderstaood words and phrases that have been widely broadcast and will take years to correct. I think this is a subject all in itself and calls for the opening of a new thread.
 
Edwin Taraba:
The Pope’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Science on the *“Theories of Evolution” *has been mistranslated and misinterpreted. This twisting of language is common amoungst the anti-god forces today. Just as they have twisted the First Amendment of the Constitution around to reverse its original meaning they have twisted the Pope’s intentions around to contradict church teachings.
Quite frankly I don’t give a tinker’s cuss what the pope believes or doesn’t. If he does accept evolution, then fine; if he does not, then he’s an ignoramus (literally, one pontificating (;)) on matters about which he is ignorant).

I do find it odd that people can get so hung up on what the church does or doesn’t teach, which is academic to the point of navel-gazing. If the church states that evolution is false, then it is wrong, and must change or keep damned quiet about it. But since it managed to cope with Copernicus and Galileo, I don’t see why it should not be able to reach an accommodation with other areas of science. But that is squarely the church’s problem, not science’s. Surely the church should stick to theology? If it wants to make statements about the world – if it steps on science’s turf – then it had better back what it says up with evidence. If it makes scientific claims, it must play by science’s rules.

Same goes for any creationists here.
 
Oolon Colluphid:
Y

So, there is no ‘atheistic evolution’. There is simply natural evolution, with or without gods. Maybe there are gods, maybe not, but we’ll not find them with science, so we don’t try. The only sort of god that evolution refutes is one who proponents insist did his creating in one particular way.
TTFN, Oolon
I would venture to say that it seems to me evolution is an atheists tool. Many of the posts are using evolution to try to convince the readers that there cannot be a God. We clearly don’t subscribe to this and will defend it. Evolution and the Catholic Church are historically incompatible as you define. The Pope has said that it is just one of many hypothesis concerning our origins.

Maybe we could clear this up by posters identifying whether they are atheists or just debating creation vs evolution on its own merits.
 
Oolon Colluphid:
Quite frankly I don’t give a tinker’s cuss what the pope believes or doesn’t. If he does accept evolution, then fine; if he does not, then he’s an ignoramus (literally, one pontificating (;)) on matters about which he is ignorant).

I do find it odd that people can get so hung up on what the church does or doesn’t teach, which is academic to the point of navel-gazing. If the church states that evolution is false, then it is wrong, and must change or keep damned quiet about it. But since it managed to cope with Copernicus and Galileo, I don’t see why it should not be able to reach an accommodation with other areas of science. But that is squarely the church’s problem, not science’s. Surely the church should stick to theology? If it wants to make statements about the world – if it steps on science’s turf – then it had better back what it says up with evidence. If it makes scientific claims, it must play by science’s rules.

Same goes for any creationists here.
And the same goes for evolutionists. They should stick to their ground. Generally, your statements do penetrate into theology which by the same reasoning you should play by theologies rules. Basically, the Church trusts revelation and I am not sure it is making scientific claims. Science and faith are not incompatible because they all flow from the same source, God.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I would venture to say that it seems to me evolution is an atheists tool.
And presumably a tool of racists, eugenicists, capitalists and communists, economists…? What it can be used for, and what some people may extrapolate from it, does not affect its validity in the only area it is strictly applicable to: biology and palaeobiology.
Many of the posts are using evolution to try to convince the readers that there cannot be a God.
I must have missed those. If I’d seen them, I’d have informed the posters otherwise. To repeat: evolution only disproves a literal reading of Genesis. Because all the evidence is that it simply wasn’t like that. It does not disprove God, only that God didn’t do it that way. But if one insists that it was à la Genesis in the face of the evidence, and pin one’s definition of God on that (as a hands-on designer, and things appearing suddenly fully formed), then I guess that God is refuted.
Evolution and the Catholic Church are historically incompatible as you define.
If I’m understanding you, then they are only incompatible in the same way as heliocentrism and the Catholic Church were.
The Pope has said that it is just one of many hypothesis concerning our origins.
Sure. But it’s the only scientific one.
Maybe we could clear this up by posters identifying whether they are atheists or just debating creation vs evolution on its own merits.
I at least am doing only the latter. If I stray into other threads, then I shall not be using evolution in itself to support my atheism, though I might use evidence from biology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top