Evolution and Relativism

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ,

Pope Benedict has recognized the Dictatorship of Relativism. There is no truth, except the idea that there is no truth. What is good for you or right and wrong may not be good for someone else or right and wrong. But there is another dictatorship: The Dictatorship of Science.

The Dictatorship of Science tells people that only science can explain reality. Science will heal you, guide you and create more interesting electronic diversions to keep you occupied and amused. Today, the word science is interchangeable with the word evolution.

Now, it is evolution that describes reality. Evangelists that promote evolution/reality on the internet are not interested in teaching or correcting, they just want your trust. Obtaining your trust is the key to your heart and mind.

I am concerned that now, today, evolution/reality is being marketed to promote atheism. Note the billboard: Praise Darwin, Evolve beyond belief. Atheist clubs are starting in schools. Why? To convince young people that 1) You were made by the mechanism, a mindless process - a natural, non-God process, 2) Science/evolution describes reality.

So, the goal is to create people who worship at the church of science/evolution. That trust the words of science and scientists. Since scientists are human, they are subject to outside temptation and corruption (as are we all).

Why must this be done? So that people will no longer worship at the Church founded by God. They will not listen to the Pope or any Christian leader that says human embryos are human beings, or that homosexual acts are disordered, or that abortion kills a human being.

Please note. On the one hand, they preach radical individual autonomy: “Hey man. Do your own thing. Your thing may not be my thing, but whatever it is, it’s cool.” But the goal is to make sure that you do indeed believe as they do. They will use science to convince you that human embryos must be used, that gay sex acts are OK, and that abortion is a woman’s right.

Evolution has entered politics, with Chris Matthews asking a politician: “Do you believe in evolution?” With an emotionless and stony face. Mr. Matthews grills him further, asking him if he took biology or understands the scientific method. Apparently, today, Democrats accept evolution and Republicans do not.

People need to understand that the current atheist recruiting campaign is based on getting people to believe that the Catholic Church and science are two separate entities, or failing that, insisting that the Catholic Church is totally OK with evolution. Let me be clear: It Is NOT. Pope Benedict has said evolution cannot be scientifically proven. The document titled Communion and Stewardship specifically addresses the process and theory of evolution twice. In one case, it is clear that without the direct causal action of divine providence, evolution cannot exist. Got that? Cannot exist. God has a direct, causal role but the biology textbook does not include it. So What?? People need to hear it. The Catholic Church is not just about faith and morals.

A human embryo is an actual human being. Science can prove it. Ask any embryologist.
Abortion kills a real human being, not a blob of tissue. Ask the people who found baby body parts in a dumpster.

Our belief in Church Teaching needs to affect our everyday lives. The Teachings are not just about faith and morals but A C T U A L human conduct.

Let’s look at what’s called creationism. I looked up a creation book on amazon that got a number of positive reviews but which compelled one person to tell a reviewer: “You are a Christian extremist and a terrorist.” This is what they are afraid of. This is their biggest concern. If people believe that God created them, which the Catholic Church literally believes is true, then they will have a hard time convincing people that a cold, heartless, uncaring mechanism made them.

Let me emphasize: Creationism cannot win, not because it lacks evidence, but because it will cause people to become MORE RELIGIOUS.

Intelligent Design cannot win, because even acknowledging an unnamed Intelligent Agent will make people MORE RELIGIOUS.

And it can NEVER be acknowledged that God had a literal, direct, causal role in evolution, as the Church teaches, because that would make people MORE RELIGIOUS.

No. The goal here, and elsewhere, is that Catholics and All Christians must accept the purely mechanical, mindless, non-goal oriented, biology textbook version of evolution. Why? So that they can make parts of the Bible impossible according to Science. The Dictatorship of Science must attack the Word of God. Not with truth, but with a nonsensical theory that can be shot full of holes, grossly revised, discredited and survive other, numerous, logical assaults by the sheer insistence argument. The formula is simple: No Matter How Much Is Discredited, The Theory Is Infinitely Flexible and Infinitely Explainable, without limit.

The progression:

Dictatorship of Science + Dictatorship of Relativism = Intellectually Satisfied Atheism

A final note. If you go to atheist forums, you will sometimes see comments like, “You don’t want things to go back to the way it was in the 1950s?” Now, what does that mean?

No Adult Bookstores.

Abortion was Illegal.

Public profanity on stage was illegal.

The media was positive and healthy.

People lived out their faith Daily. I was there. That is what they don’t want: People living out their faith. People voting according to their faith. And, in the case of Catholics, actually doing what the Pope tells us to do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

A final note. If you go to atheist forums, you will sometimes see comments like, “You don’t want things to go back to the way it was in the 1950s?” Now, what does that mean?

No Adult Bookstores.

Abortion was Illegal.

Public profanity on stage was illegal.

The media was positive and healthy.

You can add:

Families were…well…actual families.

Racial minorities were actually making progress, instead of being enthralled by a political party for whom it is not in their best interest to continue making progress

Sex was not a recreational sport, especially on TV.

Housewife was a respected profession.

Mother was a respected profession.

Nobel Prizes were given to the likes of Gandhi, instead of to somebody who had been US president all of 11 days.

America was not afraid of, or ashamed of, or apologizing for using its power to save the world from the bad guys.

We all knew who the bad guys were.

Presidential czars did not recommending killing people to obtain organs for transplant to more worthy recipients.

People had rights, and plants didn’t.

Animals and plants couldn’t sue people.

Animal rights activists didn’t blow up buildings.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. Families and neighborhoods had a heart. It was not perfect, but it tended to be kind and caring.

Religion was more respected.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

You can add:

Families were…well…actual families.

Racial minorities were actually making progress, instead of being enthralled by a political party for whom it is not in their best interest to continue making progress

Sex was not a recreational sport, especially on TV.

Housewife was a respected profession.

Mother was a respected profession.

Nobel Prizes were given to the likes of Gandhi, instead of to somebody who had been US president all of 11 days.

America was not afraid of, or ashamed of, or apologizing for using its power to save the world from the bad guys.

We all knew who the bad guys were.

Presidential czars did not recommending killing people to obtain organs for transplant to more worthy recipients.

People had rights, and plants didn’t.

Animals and plants couldn’t sue people.

Animal rights activists didn’t blow up buildings.

Isn’t the “times were better back when…” what *every *generation thinks?

 

[Nec5]

Isn’t the “times were better back when…” what *every *generation thinks?

To some extent. The problem with your rebuttal is that people probably stated these types of concerns before Rome, Egypt, and virtually every past empire collapsed. Therefore, analyzing internal moral decay can be very helpful, and the “people always look at the past with rose colored glasses” argument never addresses the specifics in the case of it actually being true.

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t the “times were better back when…” what *every *generation thinks?

Incorrect. Having actually lived through the last 40 years, there was a documented shift in behaviors that led to the rotten fruit of today. The primary problem? Sexual morality.

The Sexual Revolution, followed by Porn Bookstores, Topless go-go bars and slowly, gradually poisoning the public mind by increasingly sexualized media brought us to this point. Add abortion, No-Fault Divorce and the National Organization for Women. NONE of these things existed as legal entities in the 1950s and early 1960s,

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Incorrect. Having actually lived through the last 40 years, there was a documented shift in behaviors that led to the rotten fruit of today. The primary problem? Sexual morality.

The Sexual Revolution, followed by Porn Bookstores, Topless go-go bars and slowly, gradually poisoning the public mind by increasingly sexualized media brought us to this point. Add abortion, No-Fault Divorce and the National Organization for Women. NONE of these things existed as legal entities in the 1950s and early 1960s,

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed

The three attack points are Tradition, Family and Property.

 

[tjm190]

Since when is the Pope qualified to make absolute promounciations on scientic matters?

 

[edwest2]

Since when is the Pope qualified to make absolute promounciations on scientic matters?

The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It wants to engage the world and what the world is going through right now. It keeps track of scientific discoveries and makes appropriate, detailed comments related to these things. The goal is to inform all men of good will.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Incorrect. Having actually lived through the last 40 years, there was a documented shift in behaviors that led to the rotten fruit of today. The primary problem? Sexual morality.

The Sexual Revolution, followed by Porn Bookstores, Topless go-go bars and slowly, gradually poisoning the public mind by increasingly sexualized media brought us to this point. Add abortion, No-Fault Divorce and the National Organization for Women. NONE of these things existed as legal entities in the 1950s and early 1960s,

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed

Riiiiiiiight… sex is the problem.
Divorce, credit cards, corporatism, and a general lack of personal responsibility has nothing to do with today’s problems.

 

[lemondiesel]

I just think times have changed from what the church has been teaching people for thousands of years. In no way do i support gay marriage but still, it should come down to individual freedom. it is PEOPLES choices to chose how they live their lives because in fact we werent there when Jesus walked the earth. We must go on written documents that may or may not be true. I believe there is God, but religions just seem more like a form of government. They just seem to controlling on what believers should follow. If God loves all, we can live good lives and not worship him daily . . . Also, most religions have had a man die for there sins and raise from the dead (<—actually taught in my college World Religions class)

I think its just hard for people to listen to the pope when in fact there are new scientific discoveries. It is the year 2009, we are bound for change . . .

 

[Matthias123]

I just think times have changed from what the church has been teaching people for thousands of years.

Why? If it is true back then, it is still true now.

In no way do i support gay marriage but still, it should come down to individual freedom. it is PEOPLES choices to chose how they live their lives because in fact we werent there when Jesus walked the earth.

Peoples choice eh? “You will beome like Gods, knowing good from evil” That was the original temptation, and people still fall into it.

Also, most religions have had a man die for there sins and raise from the dead (<—actually taught in my college World Religions class)

You really belive that stuff? Honestly this has not been in scholarly thought since the 19th century. If you want to argue this, you are going to have to make your case against the scholarly consensus.

I think its just hard for people to listen to the pope when in fact there are new scientific discoveries. It is the year 2009, we are bound for change . . .

The Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities.

 

[lemondiesel]

you still cant look at people differently just because they dont believe the same things you do. i am just saying you may live to closed minded. I know people follow church teachings but you also have to experience life in whatever way you decide to. Wouldnt God want everyone to be happy?

 

[Matthias123]

you still cant look at people differently just because they dont believe the same things you do. i am just saying you may live to closed minded. I know people follow church teachings but you also have to experience life in whatever way you decide to. Wouldnt God want everyone to be happy?

I apologise, I attacked you without provocation. My objection is, God wants you to be happy, but you cannot grievously offend him in order to obtain this happiness. (Actually I would argue that you can’t obtain happiness this way)

 

[lemondiesel]

i know this will be in the wrong thread and sorry for changing topics, but Matthias, what would you views be on refraining on sex before marriage?

 

[Areopagite]

Riiiiiiiight… sex is the problem.

I’m pretty sure that’s not what edwest2 said. I think he was talking about sexual perversion and excess. Sexual perversion … believe it or not … is different from sex. Disagree?

I just think times have changed from what the church has been teaching people for thousands of years.

I can understand why people think that. However, in short, the Church hasn’t changed its message but has changed how it’s presented it to particular ages (similar to how a speaker must change the way he expresses himself depending on his audience). That’s the general concept in a really tight and insufficient nutshell.

In no way do i support gay marriage but still, it should come down to individual freedom.

It seems here that you think gay marriage is … evil? Corrupt? Disordered? Immoral? If so, would you say that people shouldn’t engage in gay marriage? And if that’s true, why shouldn’t the Church be against it?

And what precisely do you mean by individual freedom? Is this the same thing as “permission” and “without consequence.” Freedom could also simply mean “the ability to pursue what is good for oneself.”

it is PEOPLES choices to chose how they live their lives

People can choose to live their lives being murderers and rapists. But just because a person is able to choose, doesn’t mean that all choices should be legal or permissible.

… because in fact we werent there when Jesus walked the earth. We must go on written documents that may or may not be true.

The Church believes that moral principles (such as those regarding gay marriage) can be understood by people without the aid of Scripture or a knowledge of Jesus. It’s called natural law. Murder for example is evil and must be considered evil no matter what religion you have.

I believe there is God, but religions just seem more like a form of government. They just seem to controlling on what believers should follow.

Are you against all government in general?

If God loves all, we can live good lives and not worship him daily . . .

I’m not sure what you mean here. God indeed loves all, but that doesn’t excuse evil actions we commit. But I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

Also, most religions have had a man die for there sins and raise from the dead (<—actually taught in my college World Religions class)

There are many similarities between Christianity and other religions. Of course, this doesn’t prove that Christianity is false. Unless I’m missing something.

I think its just hard for people to listen to the pope when in fact there are new scientific discoveries. It is the year 2009, we are bound for change . . .

More people are listening to the Pope now than in the past 40 years or so. How do new scientific discoveries conflict with the Pope? I know people bring this up a lot, but they have never demonstrated why this is actually a problem.

you still cant look at people differently just because they dont believe the same things you do. i am just saying you may live to closed minded.

Well, I agree you shouldn’t look at people differently in the sense of looking at them as less human (or something like that). But you can still disagree with them. You still have to love them no matter what.

I know people follow church teachings but you also have to experience life in whatever way you decide to. Wouldnt God want everyone to be happy?

What if you choose to live the life of a murderer or rapist? If that’s what makes me happy, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that?

Perhaps, there are some actions which do not make a person happy, despite what they think to the contrary. Gay marriage is perhaps one of these things. God does want us to be happy, and it is (somewhat unexpectedly) following His law that brings us that happiness.

 

[Matthias123]

i know this will be in the wrong thread and sorry for changing topics, but Matthias, what would you views be on refraining on sex before marriage?

Once again I give you my sincerest apologies for lashing out at you – it wasn’t right. Mea maxima culpa.

My position is it that fornication not acceptable.

Sexual union is a good and beautiful act. Unfortunately is has been assailed from the very beginning of our race by those who would rather put love of self over the higher purpose of sexuality. In doing this their actions become disordered and the consequences are disharmony that not only damages the person involved, but ones neighbour and society itself.

We know that all acts are acted in order to obtain some good. For the act of existing is for the good of being, and the act of moving an object forward two inches is to move it forward and not backwards, and the act of creating a sculpture of for the good pleasent viewing – this is known as a final cause. Thus we understand that all actions are undertaken for some good. We also understand that any action contrary to this good, will itself be evil – a deficiency of good. So in the same way all human acts are to obtain some good. This is the first precept of natural law, that good is done and evil avoided.

All other precepts fall under this, and whatever is for man’s natural good is a precept of natural law and he should do, and what he sees as a natural evil he should avoid, because this would break a precept of the natural law. Since all things act naturally towards good, it follows that all things that man has a natural inclination for are good, and anything that is contrary to mans inclination is to be avoided. Since man has free will he can choose to commit an action that is deficient of good.

Man has the desire to exist, he also has the potential due to his free will to take his own life. Now the action of taking one’s own life will still be good in one sense, because without good there can be no action, but in another sense it will be a deficiency of good and thus evil because it is contrary to the natural inclination to exist.

All animals have the inclination to procreate in order to prevent the nonexistence of the species. Humans have a natural inclination to procreate, and also to care for one’s offspring. This inclination was providentially infused in man through Darwinian evolution. Therefore we understand that the natural end of sex is in one sense is for procreation. Also however, humans have a inclination for closeness with the opposite sex. They have the inclination to love and care for one another, and in loving each other they provide a solid foundation to raise offspring. We also know that sex is extremely pleasurable for this reason. Therefore we understand that the natural end of sex in another sense is the uniting of husband and wife in an ever closer bond.

Now from nature it is obvious that there is a twofold end to sex. It is firstly procreative, and secondly it is unitive. Therefore we would understand that if any two of these final ends are removed we would call the action of sex to be unnatural and disordered. The natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law, and this natural law is providentially caused in nature, because God directions all things to a meaningful and purposeful end. So it follows that neglecting any one of these natural ends would be offensive to God.

Now Aristotle says in (Ethic. viii, 12) that “man is an animal more inclined by nature to connubial than political society.” Also “man is naturally a political and gregarious animal,” as the same author asserts (Polit. i, 2) Therefore marriage itself is of the natural law.

Now the natural end of marriage itself is the good of the offspring. So it follows that sexual intercourse before marriage would be a violation of natural law because it is putting the lower desire of sexual pleasure and intimacy, over the higher desire and inclination to procreate. Therefore since this action of seeking gratification self outside of marriage is at the expense of the offspring which is the natural end of both sex and marriage, we would be right to call things act extremely selfish. Also we know that fornication is a mortal sin (Tobit 4:13) (Galatians 5:21)

 

[lemondiesel]

i dont know how to do all of those quotes lol so i will try my best to keep this organized

Q) It seems here that you think gay marriage is … evil? Corrupt? Disordered? Immoral? If so, would you say that people shouldn’t engage in gay marriage? And if that’s true, why shouldn’t the Church be against it?

A) No i do not think its evil corrupt or anything of the sort, i am just against it but thats because thats what i was taught to believe over my years going up. People should be supported because personally can you say that you are a homosexual? If you personally can’t fit into their shoes then why judge them and make them believe they are evil for doing it? Maybe I just worded my statement wrong but my personal believe is against gay marriage but if i were to vote in Congress about this support I would not base my beliefs on religion to say yes or no . . .

Q) People can choose to live their lives being murderers and rapists. But just because a person is able to choose, doesn’t mean that all choices should be legal or permissible.

A) Yes i agree, but that once again that does seem limited. I personally dont know but i am assuming revenge in the church is very bad? but i mean You personally could say you would never kill someone in the heat of passion but once again Have you ever been pushed over the limit? I agree with everything you say but most people havent been put into a bad situation.

Q) Are you against all government in general?

A) Not at all i am actually a huge Democrat and am a Political Science Government Major (keep your political comments to yourselves lol) It is just a personal belief i have haha dont really have much else i just dont want you to think i dont believe in government haha

Q) There are many similarities between Christianity and other religions. Of course, this doesn’t prove that Christianity is false. Unless I’m missing something.

A) I just say that because if its taught in all religions, How do you know which one to follow?

 

[edwest2]

I just think times have changed from what the church has been teaching people for thousands of years. In no way do i support gay marriage but still, it should come down to individual freedom. it is PEOPLES choices to chose how they live their lives because in fact we werent there when Jesus walked the earth. We must go on written documents that may or may not be true. I believe there is God, but religions just seem more like a form of government. They just seem to controlling on what believers should follow. If God loves all, we can live good lives and not worship him daily . . . Also, most religions have had a man die for there sins and raise from the dead (<—actually taught in my college World Religions class)

I think its just hard for people to listen to the pope when in fact there are new scientific discoveries. It is the year 2009, we are bound for change . . .

Of course we can all choose to live how we want. The Church doesn’t deny anyone that. It will not force anyone to go to Church. In the case of Catholics who miss Mass, a priest will not be pounding on their door to ask why they didn’t go.

Who do you trust? Why do you trust them? Do you believe wisdom or knowledge or enlightenment poured into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Matthias123]

Of course we can all choose to live how we want. The Church doesn’t deny anyone that. It will not force anyone to go to Church. In the case of Catholics who miss Mass, a priest will not be pounding on their door to ask why they didn’t go.

If I was Pope I would send a squad of Swiss gaurds