Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some posts imply that evolution is the “sandbox” of atheists, like Dawkins. Most atheists, whether they are scientists or laypersons, raised in Christian societies have come to that the conclusion atheism makes sense because Christians are not guilty of loving each other.
However, the conclusion that religion is the sole cause of hatred and killing is not valid because good atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. are responsible for a considerable amount of deaths and misery. Rather, it is the conviction that certain groups know the “truth”, and will use any means to enforce their truth. Unfortunately, humans are capable of much evil whether they are theist or atheists.
The problem stems of whether the Hebrew and Christian Bible are a collection of books are books of science, history, and “the good news” or primarily the “good news”. From the Hebrew and Christian books, one sees the viewpoint that sun, moon, planets and move around the earth in perfect circles. In this viewpoint, all the motions are very complicated requiring an astrolabe; however, if the sun is the center of the solar system, and the planets and their moons have elliptical orbits, the motions are very predictable and precise. So is the Bible in error by implying the earth is the center of the universe, or is our particular interpretation in error? Likewise cannot there be a high probability that the notion that the earth was created in 6 24 hour day be in error? Is this interpretation Christian orthodoxy?
What is more important, Christian orthodoxy or love? See Corinthians I, 13-14. The issues dividing Christians about their “sandbox” of interpreting Scripture is stupid. Why do we not heed Corinthians I, 13-14, and do what is important like feeding Christ when He is hungry, giving Him water when He is thirsty, clothing Him when He is naked, and visiting Him when He is imprisoned. The trouble with Christianity is that is is not widely practiced.
If one’s interpretation of Scripture and perceived orthodoxy is more important, then start another church and be its pastor. The United States has only approximately 40,000 Christian denominational and “non-denominational “churches, each with their spin on interpreting the Bible. So what if there is one more church with the orthodox Christian viewpoint?
 
Interesting. The notion that defined dogmas can change is heretical in itself. There is no support for that idea in Catholic teaching and it has been condemned as the modernist heresy.
Reggie, it seems that either you are incapable of critical reading and thinking, or that you are willfully and maliciously misinterpreting what I have written.
 
Reggie, it seems that either you are incapable of critical reading and thinking, or that you are willfully and maliciously misinterpreting what I have written.
I have to agree with Reggie. You are promoting a Church that fits the outside world and current fashion. The Church is a bulwark against error. Please don’t lay on the ground and claim maliciousness was given to you. Christ told us to build our house on a rock, yet you promote sand. The Church has the character of the Living God which is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The unfolding of God’s plan will be by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed
 
I have to say, I am worried at how this is beginning to look like an inquisitionary witchhunt against St. Anastasia…

:frighten:

Thing is, I think everyone is confusing modernism and post-modernism a little too much. Modernism was largely refuted by post-modernism. Is there really full on Dogma proclaiming postmodernism heretical?

If so, show me where it is!
 
Please don’t lay on the ground
Ed, don’t you mean “Please don’t lie on the ground”? (“Lay” is a transitive verb). This post is merely for grammatical correction – substantive reply to follow.
 
I have to agree with Reggie. You are promoting a Church that fits the outside world and current fashion. The Church is a bulwark against error. Please don’t lay on the ground and claim maliciousness was given to you. Christ told us to build our house on a rock, yet you promote sand. The Church has the character of the Living God which is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The unfolding of God’s plan will be by the power of the Holy Spirit. Peace,Ed
You are no better a reader than Reggie is. I am not promoting a new Church at all. Of course God is eternal, but the Church is not God. The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation. We no longer inhabit the first century with its Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, pre-Newtonian, pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanical, pre-evolutionary world view. If the Church is strong enough she can withstand that dramatic changes in worldview that have come about since 1600. If you are afraid she is not strong enough to weather these changes, perhaps she is not a church worth hanging onto.

StAnastasia
 
I have to say, I am worried at how this is beginning to look like an inquisitionary witchhunt against St. Anastasia…Thing is, I think everyone is confusing modernism and post-modernism a little too much. Modernism was largely refuted by post-modernism. Is there really full on Dogma proclaiming postmodernism heretical?If so, show me where it is!
Mystic Banana, inquisitions are common here.

Since post-modernism by definition rejections the idea that there is one perspective that trumps all others, I suspect it could not be pronounced heretical. The pope – a fallible human like us all – would have to claim that his viewpoint alone is supreme.
 
I have to agree with Reggie. You are promoting a Church that fits the outside world and current fashion.
The World we live in was made by God. Something that “fits” the world ipso facto also “fits” with what was made by God. As far back as Saint Augustine the Catholic Church has known that it has to take into account secular knowledge of the outside world. Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed.

Any Church that wants to take account of all of God’s work has to take into account the material world, since that material world is God’s work. To fail to take the material world into account is to ignore part of what God has done. Would you rather follow a church that only agrees with part of what God has done or a Church that agrees with all that God has done?

rossum
 
You are no better a reader than Reggie is. I am not promoting a new Church at all. Of course God is eternal, but the Church is not God. The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation. We no longer inhabit the first century with its Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, pre-Newtonian, pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanical, pre-evolutionary world view. If the Church is strong enough she can withstand that dramatic changes in worldview that have come about since 1600. If you are afraid she is not strong enough to weather these changes, perhaps she is not a church worth hanging onto.

StAnastasia
PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of Battle; Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke Him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen

(This powerful prayer of exorcism was composed by Pope Leo XIII; in a vision, he had been shown the fearful battle to be waged between Satan and St. Michael, over the Church of the future. Now, as never before, the Church needs the intercession of St. Michaell Please say this prayer every day.)

angelfire.com/ca3/rafaelmarie/ThePieta/zcangelus.html
 
Any Church that wants to take account of all of God’s work has to take into account the material world, since that material world is God’s work. To fail to take the material world into account is to ignore part of what God has done. Would you rather follow a church that only agrees with part of what God has done or a Church that agrees with all that God has done?
👍
 
You are no better a reader than Reggie is. I am not promoting a new Church at all. Of course God is eternal, but the Church is not God. The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation. We no longer inhabit the first century with its Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, pre-Newtonian, pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanical, pre-evolutionary world view. If the Church is strong enough she can withstand that dramatic changes in worldview that have come about since 1600. If you are afraid she is not strong enough to weather these changes, perhaps she is not a church worth hanging onto.

StAnastasia
Does this means the Deposit of Faith is different today than 2000 years ago?
 
Mystic Banana, inquisitions are common here.

Since post-modernism by definition rejections the idea that there is one perspective that trumps all others, I suspect it could not be pronounced heretical. The pope – a fallible human like us all – would have to claim that his viewpoint alone is supreme.
So the human perspective trumps Christ’s?
 
Any Church that wants to take account of all of God’s work has to take into account the material world, since that material world is God’s work. To fail to take the material world into account is to ignore part of what God has done. Would you rather follow a church that only agrees with part of what God has done or a Church that agrees with all that God has done?

rossum
I like this. This is one way to parse through to find which church possesses the fullness of truth.
 
So the human perspective trumps Christ’s?
The human perspective on the physical and biological world today is more accurate that of Jesus of Nazareth, which reflects the cosmological, physiological, and natural historical knowledge available in the first century CE.
 
The human perspective on the physical and biological world today is more accurate that of Jesus of Nazareth, which reflects the cosmological, physiological, and natural historical knowledge available in the first century CE.
Or so we like to think! 😉
 
The human perspective on the physical and biological world today is more accurate that of Jesus of Nazareth, which reflects the cosmological, physiological, and natural historical knowledge available in the first century CE.
Could Jesus have explained it if He wanted to?
 
You are no better a reader than Reggie is. I am not promoting a new Church at all. Of course God is eternal, but the Church is not God. The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation. We no longer inhabit the first century with its Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, pre-Newtonian, pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanical, pre-evolutionary world view. If the Church is strong enough she can withstand that dramatic changes in worldview that have come about since 1600. If you are afraid she is not strong enough to weather these changes, perhaps she is not a church worth hanging onto.

StAnastasia
Alright then. What, in your view, should the Church say or do differently today? Just a list will do unless you want to elaborate.

Peace,
Ed

P.S.
Thanks for the grammatical correction.
 
Could Jesus have explained it if He wanted to?
With no knowledge of post-Galilean astronomy, post-Newtonian mechanics, post Einsteinian physics, post-Darwinian biology, post-DNA genetics, or post-Wegener geology, I doubt he could have.
 
With no knowledge of post-Galilean astronomy, post-Newtonian mechanics, post Einsteinian physics, post-Darwinian biology, post-DNA genetics, or post-Wegener geology, I doubt he could have.
Who exactly do you think Jesus was?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top